\  \ 
,  -*«  '  J 

<■'/ 


DA  317.8  . C8  M37 6  1898 
Mason,  Arthur  James,  1851- 
1928. 

Thomas  Cranmer 


✓ 

Readers  of  jJMigtott 

Edited  by  H.  C.  Beeching,  M.A. 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/thomascranmerOOmaso 


THOMAS  CRANMER 

FROM  TH'K  PICTURE  BY  GKRB1C  IV  THE  NATIONAL  PORTRAIT  GALLERY 
FROM  A  PHOTOGRAPH  BY  MESSRS.  WALKER  AND  BOUTALL 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


BY 

ARTHUR  JAMES  MASON,  D.D. 

lady  Margaret’s  reader  in  divinity  and  fellow  of  jesus  college 

CAMBRIDGE,  CANON  OF  CANTERBURY 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY 


TO  THE  REVEREND  AND  LEaRNED 


THE  MASTER  AND  FELLOWS  OF  JESUS  COLLEGE 

I  OFFER 

THIS  SLIGHT  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  OF  THE  EXTREME  KINDNESS 
WITH  WHICH  THEY  HAVE  WELCOMED  ME  INTO  THE  SOCIETY 
OF  WHICH  CRANMER  WAS  TWICE  FELLOW 


b 


PREFACE 


This  book  is  not  intended  to  be  an  exhaustive 
account  of  the  great  Archbishop’s  life,  or  to  go  minutely 
into  every  question  that  may  be  raised  in  connexion 
with  it.  It  is  rather  an  attempt  to  use  in  a  fairly 
broad  fashion  the  results  of  the  researches  of  many 
students,  with  a  view  to  setting  Cranmer  as  a  living  and 
intelligible  figure  before  the  English  reader  of  to-day. 
He  is  still,  as  the  late  Lord  Houghton  called  him  in  the 
preface  to  his  Recantacyons,  “  the  most  mysterious  person¬ 
age  of  the  British  Reformation  ;  ”  but  the  history  of  the 
sixteenth  century  is  gradually  becoming  known,  and 
Archbishop  Cranmer  has  received  a  large  share  of 
sympathetic  study. 

The  materials  for  his  biography  are,  first,  his  own 
letters  and  writings.  These  have  been  collected  and 
published  during  this  century  by  Mr.  H.  Jenkyns,  and 
also  by  the  Parker  Society.  I  have  generally  used  Mr. 
Jenkyns’  collection.  Next  in  value  are  the  two 
documents  printed  in  the  Camden  Society’s  Narratives 
of  the  Reformation — both  of  them  first-class  authorities. 
Ralph  Morice’s  notes — the  more  important  document  of 
the  two — were  written  for  Archbishop  Parker,  and  are 
the  work  of  Cranmer’s  principal  secretary,  a  man  of 
intelligence  and  resource.  It  may  be  that  they  are 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


occasionally  coloured  by  partiality,  but  it  is  to  tlie  credit 
of  Archbishop  Cranmer  that  he  should  have  been  able 
to  inspire  such  devoted  loyalty  into  the  heart  of  his 
servant.  Foxe’s  Acts  and  Monuments  stand  in  a 
secondary  position.  His  account  of  Cranmer  is  largely 
drawn  from  the  two  documents  just  mentioned.  He 
frequently,  especially  in  reporting  conversations,  en¬ 
deavours  to  improve  upon  his  original,  which  detracts 
from  the  historical  value  of  his  work;  otherwise  its 
vivacity  and  picturesque  force  make  it  delightful 
reading.  The  works  of  Burnet  and  Strype  are  most  use¬ 
ful  to  the  student,  especially  in  the  pidces  justificatives 
contained  in  their  appendices  ;  but  both  authors  require 
constant  verification.  Among  later  works  Todd’s  and 
Hook’s  lives  are,  in  their  respective  ways,  serviceable, 
though  neither  of  them  succeeds  in  presenting  a  satis¬ 
factory  portrait  of  Cranmer. 

For  an  account  of  the  special  documents  relating  to 
the  Archbishop’s  last  days,  I  would  refer  the  reader  to 
the  fourth  volume  of  Mr.  R.  W.  Dixon’s  noble  History. 
I  have  to  thank  Mr.  Dixon  for  having  lent  me  his 
copy  of  the  remarkable  tract  called  Bishop  Cranmer’ s 
Bccantacyons ,  which,  as  he  justly  says,  he  was  the  first 
to  use.  But  I  have  even  more  to  thank  him  for  his 
History  itself.  My  own  book  is  little  else  than  a 
putting  together  of  various  parts  of  that  work  in  which 
Cranmer  is  spoken  of.  I  trust  that  it  will  not  be 
thought  disrespectful  if  I  observe  that  Mr.  Dixon’s 
treatment  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  becomes  more  and 
more  appreciative  in  the  successive  volumes.  No  doubt 
that  is  partly  because,  like  other  good  men,  Cranmer 
himself  became  worthier  of  his  regard;  but  I  believe 
that  it  is  partly  also  because  the  more  deeply  Cranmer’s 


PREFACE 


IX 


character  and  career  are  studied,  the  more  attractive 
they  make  themselves  felt  to  be.  Among  historical 
figures,  as  among  those  of  actual  life,  the  fewest 
mistakes  are  made  by  him,  who,  while  exercising  a  just 
criticism,  exercises  it  with  a  charitable  resolve  to  put 
the  best  construction  which  facts  will  allow  upon 
actions  and  motives.  Mr.  Dixon  has  taught  us  to  do 
this  with  men  as  widely  apart  as  Gardinei  and  Latimei , 
as  Bonner  and  Hooper.  If  my  pages  may  help  English¬ 
men  to  do  likewise  with  a  greater  person,  I  shall  indeed 

be  thankful. 

Canterbury ,  Holy  Cross  Day ,  1897. 


Since  writing  the  above,  I  must  add  my  best  thanks 
to  Mr.  James  Gairdner  for  having  most  kindly  presented 
me  with  a  copy  of  Bishop  Cranmers  Bccantacyons,  of 
which  he  was  the  Editor. 


CONTENTS 


CHAP.  PAGE 

i.  cranmer’s  life  until  the  divorce  ...  ...  1 

II.  CRANMER  AND  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY...  44 

III.  CRANMER  AND  THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  81 

IV.  CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI.  ...  ...  ...  119 

v.  cranmer’s  last  years  ...  ...  ...  ...  165 


THOMAS  CRANMER 

CHAPTER  I 

cranmer’s  life  until  the  divorce 

The  subject  of  this  biography  has,  perhaps,  received 
more  indiscriminate  praise  and  more  indiscriminate 
censure  than  any  other  ecclesiastic  of  the  English 
Church.  His  predecessor  Thomas  Becket,  and  his 
successor  William  Laud,  both  martyred  like  himself, 
alone  rival  him  in  this  respect.  Cranmer  was  a  man 
not  free  from  infirmities,  and  it  is  no  object  of  the 
following  pages  to  make  light  of  them;  but  it  must 
be  taken  into  consideration  that  the  circumstances  in 
which  he  lived  were  difficult  beyond  parallel  in  English 
history ;  and  no  one — at  any  rate  no  one  who  values  the 
principles  of  Reformed  Catholicism — can  withhold, 
when  he  is  acquainted  with  the  facts,  a  thankful 
admiration  for  the  man  who,  by  the  providence  of  God, 
steered  the  Church  of  England  so  well  through  the 
first  perils  of  the  Reformation. 

Cranmer’s  family  is  said  to  have  been  of  Norman 
extraction.  A  Norman  gentleman  bearing  the  same 
name  and  the  same  arms  was  attached  to  one  of  the 
French  embassies  in  Henry  VIII.’s  time,  and  was 

B 


2 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


entertained  at  Lambeth  by  the  Archbishop.  Their 
original  seat  in  England  was  in  Lincolnshire,  where,  at 
the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century  there  was  still  “  an 
ancient  mansion-house  of  antiquity,  called  Cranmer 
Hall,”  with  the  arms  of  Cranmer  still  to  be  seen  in  the 
windows.1  The  great-grandfather  of  the  Archbishop, 
by  marriage  with  an  heiress,  came  into  the  property  of 
Aslockton,  in  the  adjoining  county  of  Nottingham. 

Aslockton  lies  in  the  pleasant  and  fertile  Yale  of 
Belvoir,  between  Nottingham  and  Grantham,  on  the 
banks  of  the  little  river  Smyte.  On  a  piece  of  firm 
ground,  amidst  the  morasses  through  which  the  stream 
once  wandered,  rises  a  bold  grassy  mound,  the  only  sur¬ 
vivor  out  of  three  which  are  said  to  have  once  existed 
there.  The  mounds  were  formerly  known  as  the  Bailey 
Hills,  and  are  no  doubt  the  remains  of  some  ancient 
fortification ;  but  the  villagers  call  the  one  which 
remains  “  Cranmer’s  Mound,”  and  the  tradition  is  that 
the  Archbishop,  whether  in  youth  or  in  later  life,  used 
to  sit  upon  this  mound  and  listen  to  “  the  tuneable 
bells  ”  of  the  neighbouring  church  of  Whatton. 
Accounts  differ  as  to  the  site  of  the  house  where 
the  Cranmers  lived  ;  but  there  on  J uly  2,  1489,  was 
born  the  future  Archbishop,  the  second  son  of  Thomas 
and  Agnes  Cranmer,  the  sixth  in  a  family  of  seven, 
having  two  brothers  and  four  sisters.2 

Cranmer  s  youth  was  not  altogether  happily  spent. 

1  Morice  p.  238.  The  arms  were  originally  three  cranes,  but 
Henry  VIII.  changed  them  into  three  pelicans  in  their  piety,  as 
a  sign  of  Cranmer’s  readiness  to  shed  his  blood  for  his  children  in 
the  faith  ;  “  for  you  are  like  to  be  tested,”  he  said  prophetically, 
“if  you  stand  to  your  tackling.” — (Ibid.  251.) 

2  Some  part  of  his  father’s  estate  seems  to  have  come  into  the 
hands  of  the  Archbishop,  although  his  elder  brother  lived  and  had 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


3 


His  father  “  did  set  him  to  school  with  a  marvellous 
severe  and  cruel  schoolmaster.”  According  to  one 
account  this  schoolmaster  was  “a  rude  parish  clerk.”* 1 
Cranmer  afterwards  complained  that  he  “  appalled, 
dulled,  and  daunted  the  tender  and  fine  wits  of  his 
scholars,”  and  said  “that,  for  his  part,  he  lost  much  of 
that  benefit  of  memory  and  audacity  in  his  youth  that 
by  nature  was  given  unto  him,  which  he  could  never 
recover.”  2 

Hot  all  his  “audacity,”  however,  was  taken  from  him. 
His  father,  though  always  “  very  desirous  to  have  him 
learned,  yet  would  he  not  that  he  should  be  ignorant  in 
civil  and  gentlemanlike  exercises;  insomuch  that  he  used 
him  to  shoot,  and  many  times  permitted  him  to  hunt 
and  hawk,  and  to  exercise  and  to  ride  rough  horses.” 
These  pursuits  were  maintained  in  mature  life.  When 
he  was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  according  to  his 
secretary’s  account,  “he  feared  not  to  ride  the  roughest 
horse  that  came  into  his  stable,  which  he  would  do 
very  comely ;  as  otherwise  at  all  times  there  was  none 
that  would  become  his  horse  better.  And  when  time 
served  for  recreation  after  study,  he  would  both  hawk 
and  hunt,  the  game  being  prepared  for  him  beforehand, 
and  would  sometime  shoot  in  the  long-bow,  but  many 
times  kill  his  deer  with  the  crossbow  ;  and  yet  his  sight 
was  not  perfect,  for  he  was  purblind.”  3 

The  father  did  not  live  to  see  the  results  of  his  training* 
of  the  boy.  He  died  when  Thomas  was  twelve  years  old, 


a  numerous  family.  In  a  State  paper  of  1529,  “  Mr.  Dr.  Cranmer” 
is  named  as  one  of  those  who  have  corn  to  dispose  of  in  the 
parish  of  Aslockton. 

1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  218. 

2  Morice  p.  239.  3  Ibid.  p.  240. 


4 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


and  was  buried  in  Whatton  Church,  where  a  dignified 
and  uncommon-looking  stone  covers  his  grave,  incised 
with  his  effigy,  in  the  costume  of  a  gentleman  of  Henry 
VII.’s  reign.  The  widowed  mother  sent  Thomas,  at 
the  age  of  fourteen  years,  to  Jesus  College  at  Cam¬ 
bridge,  which  had  been  founded  seven  years  before. 
His  college  tutor  was  not  a  man  to  be  of  much  help  to 
an  inquiring  youth.  “  The  scholar  of  such  an  one  I 
was,”  he  writes,  “  who  when  he  came  to  any  hard 
chapter,  which  he  well  understood  not,  would  find 
some  pretty  toy  to  shift  it  off,  and  to  skip  over  to 
another  chapter,  of  which  he  could  better  skill.” 1 
There  “  he  was  nozzled,”  says  a  contemporary,  “  in  the 
grossest  kind  of  sophistry,  logic,  philosophy,  moral  and 
natural  (not  in  the  text  of  the  old  philosophers,  but 
chiefly  in  the  dark  riddles  of  Duns  and  other  subtile 
questionists),  to  his  age  of  twenty- two  years.  After  that, 
he  gave  himself  to  Faber,  Erasmus,  good  Latin  authors, 
four  or  five  years  together,  unto  the  time  that  Luther 
began  to  write;  and  then  he,  considering  what  great 
controversy  was  in  matters  of  religion  (not  only  in 
trifles,  but  in  the  chiefest  articles  of  our  salvation), 
bent  himself  to  try  out  the  truth  herein :  and  foras¬ 
much  as  he  perceived  that  he  could  not  judge  in¬ 
differently  in  so  weighty  matters  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  (before  he  were  infected  with 
any  man’s  opinions  or  errors),  he  applied  his  whole 
study  three  years  to  the  said  Scriptures.  After  this 
he  gave  his  mind  to  good  writers,  both  new  and  old, 
not  rashly  running  over  them,  for  he  was  a  slow 
reader,  but  a  diligent  marker  of  whatsoever  he  read  ; 
for  he  seldom  read  without  pen  in  hand,  and  whatsoever 

1  Jenkyns  iii.  472. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


5 


made  either  for  the  one  part  or  the  other,  of  things 
being  in  controversy,  he  wrote  it  out  if  it  were  short, 
or  at  the  least  noted  the  author  and  the  place,  that  he 
might  find  it  and  write  it  out  by  leisure  ;  which  was  a 
great  help  to  him  in  debating  of  matters  ever  after. 
This  kind  of  study  he  used  till  he  were  made  Doctor  of 
Divinity,  which  was  about  the  thirty-fourth  of  his  age.”1 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  date  at  which 
this  evidently  well-informed  writer  speaks  of  Cranmer’s 
turning  from  scholasticism  to  the  study  of  Erasmus  and 
other  good  Latin  authors,  was  the  date  (1511)  at  which 
Erasmus  himself  began  to  lecture  in  Cambridge  as  the 
Lady  Margaret’s  Reader  in  Divinity.  Erasmus,  in  a 
well-known  letter  of  the  year  1516,  contrasts  the  barren 
scholastic  studies,  which  were  all  that  Cambridge  had 
had  to  offer  a  few  years  before,  with  the  knowledge 
of  literature  and  of  the  Bible  which  had  recently  been 
developed  there.2  The  approximate  date  at  which 
Cranmer  is  said  to  have  devoted  himself  to  the  study 
of  Scripture  (1516)  is  the  date  of  the  publication  of 
Erasmus’  Greek  New  Testament. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  young  Cranmer 
was  personally  influenced  by  the  teaching  of  Erasmus, 
although  there  is  no  record  of  direct  intercourse 
between  the  two  men  at  Cambridge.  Later  on,  after 
Warham’s  death,  the  great  man  of  letters,  writing 
to  deplore  the  loss  of  his  chief  patron,  expresses  his 
thankfulness  that  Providence  has  made  some  compen¬ 
sation  for  him,  “  inasmuch  as  the  deceased  Archbishop’s 
place  and  dignity  has  been  taken  by  Thomas  Cranmer, 

1  Narratives  of  Ref ormation  p.  219. 

2  Erasmus  Ep.  cxlviii. ;  cf.  Mullinger  Univ.  of  Camb.  vol.  i. 
p.  515. 


6 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


a  professed  theologian,  and  a  most  upright  man  of 
spotless  life,  who,  without  my  asking  him,  has  pro¬ 
mised  that  he  will  not  be  behind  his  predecessor  in 
his  care  and  kindness  towards  me ;  and  what  he  freely 
promised,  he  has  equally  freely  begun  to  perform,  so 
that  I  may  feel  that  Warham  has  not  been  taken  away 
from  me,  but  is  born  again  in  Cranmer.”  1 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  much  to  be  wondered  at,  that  there 
was  no  more  intimate  friendship  between  him  and 
Erasmus  at  the  University.  Cranmer  was  twenty-one 
years  junior  to  Erasmus;  and  he  was  always  of  a 
retiring  temper.  It  was  not  likely  that  he  would  thrust 
himself  forward  in  academic  circles,  any  more  than 
elsewhere.  It  cannot  be  concluded  from  the  silence  of 
Erasmus  that  Cranmer  was  no  great  scholar  in  those 
days.  He  was  commonly  appointed  to  examine  candi¬ 
dates  for  degrees  in  divinity  at  Cambridge,  and  dis¬ 
tinguished  himself  by  insisting  upon  the  knowledge  of 
Scripture.2  His  reputation  for  learning  was  so  well 
established  in  the  University,  that  about  1524,  upon 
the  recommendation  of  Capon,  Master  of  Jesus,  he  was 
invited  by  Cardinal  Wolsey,  along  with  a  few  other 
rising  Cambridge  scholars,  to  accept  a  canonry  in  the 
new  Cardinal  College  at  Oxford,  an  honour  which 
Cranmer  declined.3 

Cranmer  does  not  appear  at  first  to  have  had  the 
intention  of  entering  Holy  Orders.  Soon  after  gaining 
his  fellowship  at  Jesus,  in  1510  or  1511,  when  he  was 
one  or  two  and  twenty,  “  it  chanced  him,”  in  the  quaint 
language  of  Ralph  Morice,  “  to  marry  a  wife.”  Who 

1  Erasmus  Upist.  mcclxi. 

2  Cooper’s  Athence  Cantabr.  i.  146  (after  Foxe). 

3  Morice  p.  240,  and  Cooper  l.  c. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


7 


and  what  his  wife  was  is  not  certain.  Foxe  says  that 
she  was  “  a  gentleman’s  daughter,”  and  that  Cranmer 
“  placed  the  said  wife  in  an  inn,  called  the  ‘  Dolphin/  in 
Cambridge,  the  wife  of  the  house  being  of  affinity  unto 
her.”/  That  a  gentleman’s  daughter,  in  those  days,  should 
be  related  to  the  wife  of  a  respectable  innkeeper  was 
not  impossible;  but  Foxe’s  account  of  the  matter  seems 
to  be  not  wholly  correct,  for  it  would  appear  from  the 
report  of  Cranmer’s  last  trial  that  she  was  living  at  the 
“ Dolphin”  before  her  marriage,  and  was  not  only  “placed” 
there  afterwards.  It  “  was  objected  that  he,  .  .  .  being 
yet  free,  and  before  he  entered  into  Holy  Orders,  married 
one  Joan,  surnamed  Black,  or  Brown,  dwelling  at  the 
sign  of  the  Dolphin  in  Cambridge.  Whereunto  he 
answered,  that  whether  she  was  called  black  or  brown 
he  knew  not ;  but  that  he  married  there  one  Joan,  that 
he  granted.”  2 

It  was  evidently  not  an  exalted  marriage ;  but 
scholars  in  those  days  were  often  content  with  homely 
alliances,  and  there  is  not  the  smallest  reason  for  sup¬ 
posing  that  there  was  anything  clandestine  or  other¬ 
wise  wrong  about  it.  Cranmer’s  fellowship  at  Jesus 
was  vacated  by  his  marriage ;  and  to  support  himself  he 
“  became  the  common  reader  at  Buckingham  College,”  3 
now  Magdalene.  But  within  a  year  his  wife  died,  in 
childbirth ;  and  it  is  a  proof  of  the  esteem  in  which  he 
was  held  among  those  who  knew  him  best,  that  his 
own  college  re-elected  him  fellow.  He  was  ordained 
soon  after,  for  in  1520  he  was  appointed  one  of  the 

1  Foxe  viii.  4  (I  quote  from  the  eel.  of  1843-9). 

2  Jenkyna  iv.  p.  100.  The  “Dolphin,”  according  to  Mullinger  a 
Univ.  of  Camb.  i.  612,  stood  “at  the  Bridge  Street  end  of  All 
Saints’  Passage.”  Part  of  Trinity  occupies  the  site. 

3  Morice  p.  240. 


8 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


University  preachers,  and  graduated  the  year  after  in 
divinity.  A  lecturership  in  that  science  had  been 
established  at  Jesus,  and  Cranmer  held  it.1 

It  is  pleasant  to  observe  that  Cranmer’ s  friendliness 
towards  his  College  continued  after  his  promotion  to 
Canterbury.  In  J une,  1533,  he  sent  the  Master  a  buck, 
“to  be  bestowed  amonges  your  company  within  your 
College.  And,  he  adds  pleasantly,  “  forasmuch  as  you 
have  more  store  of  money,  and  also  less  need  than  I  at 
this  season,  therefore  I  bequeath  a  noble  of  your  purse 
towards  the  baking  and  seasoning  of  him.  A_nd  when¬ 
soever  I  have  so  much  money  beforehand  as  I  am  now 
behindhand,  I  shall  repay  you  your  noble  again.”  2  Two 
years  later  he  interposed  somewhat  peremptorily  to 
preserve  the  College  from  a  troublesome  inquiry  with 
which  Cromwell  threatened  it,  most  heartily  requiring 
Cromwell  to  suspend  his  judgment,  and  to  repel  all 
manner  of  information  and  suit  in  the  case,  until  he 
heard  further  from  the  Archbishop.3 

A  most  bitter  enemy  describing  those  Cambridge 
years  says  of  Cranmer,  that  by  means  of  an  agreeable 
though  not  particularly  brilliant  nature,  and°by  im¬ 
mense,  if  ill-spent,  industry,  he  obtained  the  distinction 
of  being  made  a  Doctor,4  and  so  laid  the  foundation 
of  subsequent  honours.  “  He  had  in  his  favour,”  says 
the  same  writer,  “  a  dignified  presence,  adorned  with  a 
semblance  of  goodness,  a  considerable  reputation  for 
learning,  and  manners  so  courteous,  kindly,  and  pleasant, 
that  he  seemed  like  an  old  friend  to  those  whom  he  en¬ 
countered  for  the  first  time.  He  gave  signs  of  modesty, 

1  Morice,  p.  240.  2  Jenkyns  i.  34. 

8  Ibid.  i.  133. 

4  It  was  in  1526,  according  to  Cooper  Ath.  Cantab,  i.  146. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


9 


seriousness,  and  application.”  1  Cranmer  probably  ex¬ 
pected  and  desired  to  spend  all  bis  days  in  the  quiet 
round  of  academic  duties,  or  perhaps  to  settle  event¬ 
ually  in  a  country  benefice.  But  one  of  those  accidents 
which  alter  the  history  of  the  world,  brought  him 
suddenly  into  public  life. 

In  order  to  understand  the  nature  of  that  accident, 
it  is  necessary  to  state  briefly  the  position  of  affairs 
with  regard  to  the  so-called  Divorce  of  Henry  VIII. 
and  Catherine  of  Aragon.  To  give  this  transaction  the 
name  of  a  divorce  is  really  to  prejudge  the  question. 
Divorce,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  is  unknown  to 
Christianity.  Man  and  wife,  according  to  the  Gospel  laws, 
can  never  be  anything  else  to  each  other  but  man  and 
wife ;  and  if  Henry  and  Catherine  had  ever  been  truly 
man  and  wife,  no  act  of  Church  or  State  could  legiti¬ 
mately  set  either  of  them  free  in  the  lifetime  of  the 
other  to  marry  another  person.  But  it  is  a  matter  of 
grave  and  reasonable  doubt  whether  Henry  and  Cathe¬ 
rine  were  ever  truly  man  and  wife.  Catherine  had 
been  at  an  earlier  time  the  wife  of  Henry’s  elder  brother 
Arthur,  the  Prince  of  Wales.  According  to  Catherine  s 
own  statement,  which  there  is  no  need  to  doubt,  her 
marriage  to  Arthur  had  never  been  more  than  a  legal 
and  nominal  marriage.  But  nevertheless  it  was  suffi¬ 
cient  to  form  an  obstacle  to  marrying  Henry.  Cathe¬ 
rine  had  been  publicly  married  to  Arthur,  first  by 
proxy  and  then  in  person.  For  the  few  remaining 
months  of  the  young  Prince’s  life  the  two  had  lived 
together  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  as  man  and  wife. 
To  propose,  therefore,  after  Arthur’s  death,  as  was  done 

1  Bishop  Cranmer' s  Becantacyons  p.  3.  Regarding  this  work  see 
Dixon  iv.  490. 


10 


THOMAS  CRANMETl 


% 

by  Henry  VII.,  and  urged  by  Ferdinand  the  Catholic, 
that  his  widow  should  be  transferred  to  his  brother,  was 
to  outrage  every  Christian  sentiment.  Only  a  low  and 
unworthy  conception  of  the  marriage  tie  could  have 
made  it  possible  to  entertain  the  proposal.  There  were 
many  at  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.’s  marriage, among  whom 
was  Warham,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  questioned 
whether  it  was  possible  for  such  an  union  to  be  allowed. 

But  unhappily  the  Papal  system  of  dispensations  had 
already  accustomed  men’s  minds  to  seeing  the  laws  of 
marriage  tampered  with.  Martin  V.,  in  1418,  had  per¬ 
mitted  John,  Count  of  Foix,  to  marry  his  deceased  wife’s 
sister.1  When  Catherine’s  own  confessor  objected  to 
the  proposed  marriage  with  Henry,  her  father  could 
silence  the  objection  by  pointing  to  Emmanuel,  King  of 
Portugal,  who  was  living  happily  with  the  sister  of  his 
first  wife,  by  dispensation  from  Alexander  VI.2  The 
conscience  of  Europe  had  been  still  further  paralysed 
by  seeing  permission  given  by  the  same  wicked  Pope  to 
Ferdinand  II.,  King  of  Italy,  to  marry  his  own  aunt — 
a  precedent  many  times  followed  by  later  popes,  down 
to  the  present  one,  who  allowed  the  late  Duke  of  Aosta, 
propter  nimiam  'pietateiri,  to  marry  his  sister’s  daughter. 
But  Alexander  VI.  himself  refused  consent  to  Cathe¬ 
rine’s  marriage  with  Henry ;  and  so  did  Pius  III.  It 
was  the  next  Pope,  Julius  II.,  a  man  of  little  higher 
character  than  Alexander,  who  first  gave  a  dispensation 
for  a  man  to  marry  his  brother’s  widow ;  and  he 
did  so — the  point  is  much  to  be  observed — not  on  the 
ground  that,  after  examination,  Catherine’s  marriage 

1  Thomassin.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Eccl.  Discip.  part  II.  lib.  iii.  cap. 
28  sect.  10.  See  Mr.  Knight  Watson’s  letter  in  the  Guardian , 
Dec.  13,  1882. 

2  Hook’s  Warham  p.  195. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE  11 

with  Arthur  proved  to  have  never  been  a  real  one.  He 
expressly  sanctioned  the  union  whether  it  had  been  real 
or  not.  Had  Julius  II.  been  content  to  deviate  no 
further  from  the  law  of  God  than  Alexander  had  done 
before  him, England  might  have  remained  subject  to  the 
Papacy.  It  was  Julius  II.  who  lost  the  English  Church 
to  Rome,  by  professing  to  make  valid,  in  any  case,  a 
marriage  which  nothing  could  justify. 

That  Henry  VIII.  was  prompted  by  high  and  sacred 
considerations  to  seek  release  from  his  union  with 
Catherine  would  be  a  paradoxical  thesis  to  maintain. 
He  was  tired  of  her.  As  early  as  1524  he  had  ceased 
to  treat  her  as  a  wife.1  Another  affection  began  to 
occupy  all  his  mind.  The  way  in  which  the  matter  of 
the  divorce  was  conducted  turned  what  might  have  been 
a  right  and  Christian  transaction  into  a  tyrannous  and 
cowardly  oppression  of  a  helpless  lady.  When  it  was 
found  that  Catherine  could  not  be  brought  in  private  to 
adopt  Henry’s  view  of  the  situation,  then  every  artifice 
was  employed  to  prevent  her  from  offering  effectual 
opposition.  Cardinal  Wolsey  (who  did  not  wish  for  the 
divorce,  but  who  found  that  his  position,  if  not  his  life, 
depended  upon  carrying  it  through)  set  himself  to 
prejudice  the  Queen  in  the  judgment  of  her  best 
advisers.  While  Catherine  was  made  to  treat  the 
subject  as  a  religious  secret,  and  was  debarred  from 
communicating  with  Spain  or  Rome,  the  King  s  party 
were  pressing  busily  forward.  With  the  greatest  stealth, 
lest  the  Queen  should  hear  of  it,  embassies  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  were  sent  backwards  and  forwards  to  the  Pope  and 
to  the  French  King.  Catherine  was  looked  upon  as  an 
adversary  to  be  alternately  brow-beaten  and  outwitted  ; 

1  Brewer  Reign  of  Henry  VIII.  ii.  164. 


12 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


and  the  King,  so  far  from  putting  on  the  appearance  of 
a  man  under  a  burden  of  conscience  from  which  he 
sought  relief,  was  living  a  life  of  extravagant  gaiety, 
with  Ann  Boleyn  ostentatiously  thrust  forward  as  if 
she  were  already  Queen. 

If  only  Rome  could  have  adopted  a  firm  attitude  at 
this  juncture,  although  it  was  too  late  to  retrieve  the 
mistake  of  Julius,  yet  England  might  at  least  have 
been  lost  with  dignity.  But  the  poor  bastard  who  held 
the  see  of  Rome  was  incapable  of  taking  a  firm  attitude 
of  principle.  Clement  VII.  at  one  moment  assented 
to  the  institution  of  a  collusive  suit  before  Wolsey 
as  legate,  in  which,  without  Catherine’s  knowledge, 
Henry  was  summoned  to  answer  on  a  charge  of  living 
with  his  brother’s  wife.1  At  another  moment  he 
promised  to  give  Henry  a  dispensation  to  marry  a  new 
wife  without  deciding  for  or  against  the  validity  of  his 
first  marriage.2  These  were  the  weapons  of  unscrupu¬ 
lous  weakness.  At  length,  a  commission  was  issued  to 
Wolsey  and  Campeggio  to  sit  as  joint  commissioners  for 
the  hearing  of  the  case ;  but  the  duplicity  of  Clement  pro¬ 
vided  Campeggio  with  instructions  on  no  account  to  allow 
the  case  to  come  to  a  decision  ;  and  after  many  months 
of  obstruction,  it  was  finally  revoked,  in  July  1529,  to 
Rome.  Things  were  thus  brought  to  a  standstill. 

The  King’s  disgust  at  this  conclusion  of  the  work  of 
the  legates  drove  him  “  for  a  day  or  twain  ”  from  London 
to  Waltham  Abbey.  He  was  attended  by  two  heads  of 
Cambridge  houses — Edward  Foxe,  Provost  of  King’s, 
as  almoner,  and  Stephen  Gardiner,  Master  of  Trinity 
Hall,  as  secretary.  These  were  the  two  men  who  had 
lately  managed  the  King’s  matter.  It  was  by  their 
1  Brewer  ii.  1 87.  2  Ibid.  ii.  228,  230. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


13 


exertions  that  Clement  VII.  had  been  induced  to  issue 
his  commission  for  the  trial.  The  “  harbingers 
happened  to  quarter  them  at  Waltham  in  the  house 
of  a  gentleman  named  Cressy.  There  they  met  Dr. 
Cranmer.  An  outbreak  of  the  plague  had  driven  him 
from  Cambridge,  where  two  of  Mr.  Cressy’s  sons  were 
pupils  of  his ;  their  mother  also  being  akin  to  him. 
The  three  men  were  “  of  old  acquaintance,  and  meet¬ 
ing  together  the  first  night  at  supper  had  familiar  talk 
concerning  the  estate  of  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
and  so,  entering  into  farther  communication,  they 
debated  among  themselves  that  great  and  weighty 
cause  of  the  King’s  divorcement.”  Cranmer  modestly 
said  that  he  had  “  nothing  at  all  studied  for  the  verity 
of  this  cause,”  nor  was  “  beaten  therein,”  as  Gardiner 
and  Foxe  were ;  “  howbeit,  I  do  think,’  he  said,  “  that 
you  go  not  the  next  way  to  work  as  to  bring  the  matter 
to  a  perfect  conclusion  and  end.  .  .  This  is  most  certain, 
that  there  is  but  one  truth  in  it,  which  no  man  ought 
or  better  can  discuss  than  the  divines.  ’  It  had  already 
been  recommended  that  the  Universities  should  be 
consulted — indeed  Cranmer  himself  had  been  put  on 
a  commission  to  represent  Cambridge  in  the  matter.1 
But  Cranmer  not  only  advised  that  the  opinion  of  the 
learned  men  of  the  kingdom  should  be  sought;  he 
advised  that  the  King  should  then  proceed  to  act  upon 
it  without  waiting  for  the  “  frustratory  delays  ”  of  the 
ecclesiastical  courts.  When  the  Divine  law  had  been 
set  forth,  “  then  his  Highness,  in  conscience  quieted, 
may  determine  with  himself  that  which  shall  seem  good 
before  God,  and  let  these  tumultuary  processes  give 
place  unto  a  certain  truth.”  2 
1  Narratives  p.  219. 


2  Morice  p.  241. 


14 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


<c  If  the  King/’  so  ran  another  version  of  what  Cranmer 
said,  “  rightly  understood  his  own  office,  neither  Pope, 
nor  any  other  potentate  whatsoever,  neither  in  causes 
civil  nor  ecclesiastical,  hath  anything  to  do  with  him.  or 
any  of  his  actions,  within  his  own  realm  and  dominion  ; 
but  he  himself,  under  God,  hath  the  supreme  govern¬ 
ment  of  this  land  in  all  causes  whatsoever.”  1 

Even  this  advice  of  Cranmer’s  had  no  great  novelty 
about  it,  for  Gardiner  himself  had  a  year  before 
threatened  the  Pope  face  to  face,  at  Orvieto,  that  if  he 
did  not  give  sentence  as  required,  England  would  go 
over  to  the  opinion  that  a  Pope  was  as  unnecessary  as 
he  was  useless.2  There  were  already  many  men  of  that 
opinion  in  England,  although  it  was  not  much  avowed. 
But  Cranmer’s  utterance  came  exactly  at  the  right 
moment  for  the  King.  When  Foxe  and  Gardiner  re¬ 
ported  to  him  their  interview  with  Cranmer,  “  Mary,” 
said  the  King,  “  I  will  surely  speak  with  him,  and 
therefore  let  him  be  sent  for  out  of  hand.  I  perceive 
that  that  man  hath  the  sow  by  the  right  ear.”  3 

Cranmer  probably  never  expected  his  words  to  be 
brought  to  the  King’s  knowledge  ;  and  Foxe,  the 
martyrologist,  is  most  likely  right  when  he  affirms  that 
he  earnestly  entreated  to  be  left  to  his  peaceful  privacy. 
If  Gardiner  could  have  foreseen  the  future,  he  would 
certainly  have  done  all  in  his  power  to  give  effect 

1  Baily’s  Life  of  Fisher  p.  89.  The  words  form  no  part  of  the 
valuable  document  (published  by  Van  Ortroy  in  1893)  which 
served  as  the  chief  basis  of  “Baily’s”  work  ;  but  they  are  likely 
enough  in  themselves. 

2  Brewer  ii.  252. 

3  Foxe  viii.  7.  Wordsworth  Fed.  Biog.  iii.  130  quotes  the 
story  from  Baily’s  Life  of  Fisher  p.  90  in  the  form,  “  The  King 
swore,  by  hisuwonted  oath,  Mother  of  God,  that  man  hath  the 
right  sow  by  the  ear.” 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


15 


to  that  desire.  But  things  were  otherwise  ordered. 
Cranmer  came  to  the  King  at  Greenwich.  Henry  pro¬ 
fessed  to  take  him  into  his  confidence.  He  told  him 
that  he  never  “  fancied  woman  better  ”  than  Catherine, 
and  that  he  only  sought  for  a  dissolution  of  his  marriage 
because  it  was  a  burden  to  his  conscience.  “  Therefore, 
Mr.  Doctor,”  he  said,  “  I  pray  you,  and  nevertheless, 
because  you  are  a  subject,  I  charge  and  command  you 
(all  your  other  business  and  affairs  set  apart)  to  take 
some  pains  to  see  this  my  cause  furthered  according  to 
your  device,  as  much  as  it  may  lie  in  you,  so  that  I  may 
shortly  understand  whereunto  I  may  trust.”1  Henry 
had  a  way  of  making  men  believe  him  \  and  Cranmer, 
the  most  guileless  and  unsuspicious  of  men,  was  not 
slow  to  be  persuaded.  He  undertook  the  task,  and 
threw  himself  heart  and  soul  into  it. 

The  first  duty  assigned  to  him  was  to  cast  his 
opinions  on  the  subject  into  the  form  of  a  treatise. 
At  the  King  s  request  he  was  received,  while  writing 
it,  into  the  house  of  the  Earl  of  Wiltshire,  the  father 
of  Ann  Boleyn.  It  has  been  alleged  that  Cranmer  had 
been  for  a  long  time  past  a  chaplain  and  friend  of  the 
family. 2  The  conjecture  is  based  upon  a  misunder¬ 
standing.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  Cranmer 
was  acquainted  with  the  Boleyns  before  this  date ;  but 
he  now  formed  a  warm  and  zealous  attachment  to  them 
—especially  to  Ann— and  his  interest  in  writing  for 

1  This  is  Foxe’s  account,  viii.  8. 

2  See  Mr.  Gairdner’s  note  in  Brewer  ii.  223.  I  do  not  know 
on  what  grounds  Mr.  Gairdner  admits  that  Cranmer  was  ever  a 
chaplain  of  Wiltshire’s.  On  the  other  hand  it  would  appear  that 
Cranmer  was  already  acquainted  with.  Cromwell,  and  had  occa¬ 
sionally  acted  on  his  behalf  :  Calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Henry 
VIII.  iv.  4872. 


16 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


the  divorce  became  keener  as  he  learned  to  desire  the 
King’  s  marriage  with  his  host’s  daughter. 

As  soon  as  the  book  was  written  it  was  used  to  influ¬ 
ence  the  opinion  of  the  Cambridge  doctors.  Cranmer 
had,  it  seems,  already  disputed  on  the  subject  there, 
and  by  his  skill  in  argument  had  converted  to  the 
King’s  side  five  or  six  of  those  who  had  been  the 
leading  champions  of  the  opposite  view.  It  is  probable 
that  he  now  repaired  again  for  a  time  to  Cambridge  in 
furtherance  of  the  cause.1  His  book,  at  any  rate,  was 
widely  circulated  there,  and  with  effect.  It  is  satis¬ 
factory,  however,  to  note  that  he  was  not  personally 
implicated  in  the  discreditable  intrigues  by  which 
Gardiner  and  Foxe  obtained  a  majority  for  the  King  in 
the  Cambridge  Senate-house.  By  the  time  that  the 
University  gave  its  decision  Cranmer  was  far  away, 
discussing  the  matter  with  more  eminent  personages 
than  the  Cambridge  scholars.2 

Towards  the  end  of  1529  a  new  embassy  was  de¬ 
spatched  to  the  Court  of  Home.  At  the  head  of  it,  by 
a  strange  and  audacious  selection,  was  the  Earl  of  Wilt¬ 
shire,  Ann  Boleyn’s  father.  Cranmer  was  a  member  of 
this  embassy,  along  with  Stokesley,  Bishop-Elect  of 
London,  and  others.  They  found  the  Pope  at  Bologna, 
where  the  Emperor — Queen  Catherine’s  nephew — also 
was;  and  Cranmer  probably  witnessed  there  Charles’s 
long-deferred  coronation  at  Clement’s  hands.3  The 

1  The  occurrence  to  which  Morice  refers  (p.  242)  is  evidently 
the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  the  anonymous  biographer  (p.  220), 
who  places  it  before  the  writing  of  the  book.  Both,  however, 
speak  of  his  visiting  Cambridge  afterwards. 

2  See  the  account  of  the  Cambridge  proceedings  in  Mullinger 
i.  618,  where  the  date  is  given  as  1529  instead  of  1530. 

3  February  24,  1530. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


17 


Emperor’s  presence,  no  doubt,  made  the  prospects  of 
the  mission  less  hopeful,  and  Wiltshire  failed  to  obtain 
the  Pope’s  consent  to  have  the  cause  settled  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  When  the  Emperor’s  back 
was  turned  Clement  “  more  than  three  times  told  ”  the 
Bishop  of  Tarbes  “  in  secret,  that  he  would  be  glad  if 
the  marriage  ”  between  Henry  and  Ann  “  were  already 
made,  either  by  a  dispensation  of  the  English  legate 
or  otherwise,  provided  it  were  not  by  his  (Clement’s) 
authority,  or  in  diminution  of  his  power  as  to  dispen¬ 
sations  and  definition  of  Divine  law.”1  Clement  had 
no  high-minded  determination  to  see  right  done  by 
Catherine;  but  he  would  not  endanger  his  own  position, 
nor  give  mortal  offence  to  the  Emperor.  Wiltshire 
returned  to  England  a  few  days  after  Charles  had  left 
Bologna,  but  Cranmer  stayed  behind,  and  moved  with 
the  Pope  to  Rome.  There  he  went  on  busily  with  his 
negotiations,  alternately  sanguine  and  dejected.  On 
July  12  he  wrote  from  Rome  to  a  febow-agent  at 
Bologna  (it  is  the  earliest  letter  of  his  of  which  anything 
is  preserved) — 

“As  for  our  successes  here,  they  be  very  little;  nor 
dare  we  to  attempt  to  know  any  man’s  mind,  because  of 
the  Pope ;  nor  is  he  content  with  what  you  have  done ; 
and  he  says,  no  friars  shall  discuss  his  power.  And  as 
for  any  favour  in  this  Court,  I  look  for  none,  but  to 
have  the  Pope  with  all  his  cardinals  against  us.”  2 

A  little  later,  the  prospect  appears  to  him  somewhat 
less  gloomy — 

“  As  concerning  the  brief,  the  Pope  never  granted  us 

1  Le  Grand  Histoire  du  Divorce  iii.  400. 

2  Quoted  in  a  letter  from  Croke  to  the  King  ( State  Papers  of 
Henry  VIII.  iv.  6531),  which  is  in  part  printed  by  Burnet 
Reformation  i.  155. 


0 


18 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


none  after  our  device,  whatsoever  Sir  Gregory  (Cassalis) 
hath  written.  Mary,  this  he  did — he  willed  us  to 
devise  a  brief;  and  if  it  liked  him,  he  would  ensign  it. 
But  when  it  was  devised,  faults  were  found  in  it,  and 
it  was  given  to  the  Cardinal  Sanctorum  Quattuor  to 
amend;  but  he  amended  it  after  such  fashion  that  it 
was  clean  marred  for  our  purpose.  Since  that  time  we 
have  had  so  many  new  devised  and  changed  again;  yea, 
and  moreover,  when  the  Pope  hath  granted  some  of  our 
devise,  the  Emperor  s  oratory  hath  made  such  exclama¬ 
tions  against  the  Pope  that  all  hath  been  changed.  I 
never  knew  such  inconstancy  in  my  life.  And  to  shew 
you  plainly  my  thought,  I  suppose  we  shall  never  have 
none  according  to  our  mind,  so  long  as  the  Cardinal 
Sanctorum  Quattuor,  our  utter  adversary,  beareth  this 
authority.  Notwithstanding,  the  Pope  is  contented,  and 
I  trust  we  shall  have  shortly  one  brief  metely  good 
after  mine  opinion,  but  not  with  such  terms  as  we 
would  have  it/' 1 

Personally,  the  Pope  seems  to  have  made  a  not  un¬ 
favourable  impression  upon  Cranmer,  to  judge  from 
later  sayings  of  his.  Clement’s  manners  were  amiable, 
and  he  sought  to  do  Cranmer  a  pleasure.  He  appointed 
him  to  the  office  of  “  Penitentiary  ” — according  to  some, 
for  Henry  VIII.’s  dominions,  according  to  others,  for 
the  whole  Papal  communion  itself.2  Whether  this  was 
the  lucrative  position  which  some  have  considered  it,  or 
not,  the  conferring  of  it  was  a  high  compliment.  But  in 
spite  of  compliments,  Cranmer  returned,  as  Morice  says, 
“not  answered  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome.”  He  arrived 
in  England  in  September,  1530,  to  find  that  things 

1  /State  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.  iv.  6543. 

2  See  Wordsworth  Eccl.  Biogr.  iii.  135. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


19 


were  past  the  diplomatic  stage,  and  that  preparations 
were  making  for  independent  action. 

In  December  1530,  the  King,  under  the  guidance  of 
the  ruthless  Cromwell,  struck  his  first  blow  at  the 
papal  power  by  laying  the  entire  clergy  of  England 
under  a  Praemunire,  for  having  accepted  Wolsey  as 
legate  of  the  Pope,  although  it  had  been  at  Henry’s 
own  instance  that  he  was  made  legate.  The  Convoca¬ 
tion,  which  met  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  year, 
thought  it  best  to  make  no  resistance  to  this  tyrannical 
measure,  but  to  purchase  the  King’s  forgiveness  by  a 
large  vote  of  money.  Before,  however,  their  gift  was 
accepted,  it  was  determined  by  the  King  and  his  ad¬ 
visers  that  the  Church  should  be  forced  to  acknowledge 
explicitly  its  subjection  to  the  Crown.  Into  the  deed 
which  conveyed  their  grant  of  money  they  were  re¬ 
quired  to  insert,  among  other  expressions,  a  clause 
which  acknowledged  the  King  as  “  alone  Protector  and 
Supreme  Head  of  the  Church,  as  of  the  clergy,  of  Eng¬ 
land.”  The  clause  was  long  and  vigorously  debated  in 
Convocation.  Messages  went  backwards  and  forwards 
between  the  clergy  and  the  King.  The  King  was  ready 
to  modify  his  language  by  admitting  the  words  “after 
God  ”  into  the  title  of  “  Supreme  Plead.”  Even  so 
the  clergy  would  not  agree  to  the  title.  At  last,  on 
February  11,  Archbishop  Warham  proposed  an  amended 
recognition  of  the  King  as  “  sole  protector,  only  and 
Supreme  Lord,  and,  as  far  as  the  law  of  Christ 
allows,  Supreme  Head  also  ”  of  the  English  Church  and 
clergy.  The  amended  form  was  received  in  silence. 
When  the  Archbishop  reminded  the  assembly  that 
silence  must  be  taken  for  consent,  a  voice  replied, 
“Then  are  we  all  silent.”  The  Convocation  of  York 


20 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


followed  the  example  of  Canterbury,  although  some  of 
the  bishops  of  the  northern  province  thought  fit  to 
publish  protestations,  explaining  the  sense  in  which 
they  admitted  the  title ;  to  which  protestations  the 
King  himself  replied  in  a  conciliatory  manner,  de¬ 
claring  that  he  intended  no  intrusion  into  the  proper 
functions  of  the  episcopate. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  all  the  debates  upon  the 
new  title — at  any  rate  in  this  stage  of  proceedings — no 
one  thought  of  suggesting  that  the  King  was  encroach¬ 
ing  upon  the  rights  of  the  Pope.  Later  on,  indeed,  it 
was  supposed  that  by  this  act  the  King  was  substituted 
for  the  Pope  as  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  the  title  wras  to  mean 
anything  at  all,  it  involved  a  repudiation,  or  restriction, 
of  powers  which  the  Papacy  had  been  permitted  to 
exercise  in  England.  But  the  designation  of  “  Supreme 
Head,”  or  “sole  Protector,”  or  “only  and  Supreme  Lord  ” 
of  the  English  Church,  had  never  been  used  or  thought 
of  in  connexion  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  and  in 
arrogating  it  to  himself  Henry  VIII.  made  no  reference 
to  the  claims  of  the  Papacy ;  nor  did  those  who  opposed 
the  designation  oppose  it  in  the  interests  of  the  Papacy : 
they  opposed  it  in  the  interests  of  the  liberty  of  the 
English  Church,  and  in  the  interests  of  the  spiritual 
authority  assigned  by  Christ  to  the  apostolic  ministry. 
When  (mistakenly  or  not)  they  were  satisfied  that 
Henry  was  only  claiming  what  his  predecessors  had 
always  claimed,  and  had  no  designs  upon  the  internal 
constitution  of  the  English  Church,  the  anti-papal  drift 
of  the  King’s  new  style  woke  no  perceptible  alarm. 
The  nation,  both  in  Church  and  in  State,  was  well 
accustomed  to  anti-papal  enactments,  and  there  were 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


21 


few  who  objected  to  them  so  strongly  as  to  think  it 
worth  while  to  speak  out.  The  voice  which  emphasised 
the  silence  of  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  when  the 
new  title  was  read  out,  expressed  the  feelings  of  the 
English  Church  and  nation. 

But  the  next  year,  1532,  saw  the  Supreme  Head 
beginning  to  interfere  with  the  liberties  of  the  English 
Church  in  a  new  way.  In  answer  to  a  supplication  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  in  spite  of  temperate  and 
earnest  expostulations  on  the  part  of  the  hierarchy,  the 
King  forced  upon  Convocation  the  memorable  Submis¬ 
sion  of  the  Clergy.  By  this  they  bound  themselves  not 
to  put  forth  any  new  canons  or  ordinances  without  the 
King’s  assent,  and  agreed  that  the  existing  canons 
should  be  examined  by  a  committee  of  the  King’s 
appointment,  with  a  view  to  annulling  those  which 
might  be  found  prejudicial  to  the  realm,  or  onerous  to 
the  laity,  retaining  in  force  the  remainder  if  they 
should  receive  the  royal  authority.  The  King  is  said  to 
have  exclaimed,  in  the  midst  of  these  transactions,  that 
owing  to  the  oaths  of  canonical  obedience  to  Rome 
taken  by  the  bishops  at  their  consecration,  the  English 
clergy  were  but  half  his  subjects.  But  so  far  were  the 
English  clergy  from  objecting  to  the  new  regulations 
for  fear  of  causing  a  breach  in  the  connexion  with 
Rome,  that  the  Convocation  in  this  same  year  presented 
a  petition  (which  bore  fruit  in  an  Act  of  Parliament) 
for  the  abolition  of  the  Annates,  or  first-fruits,  which 
the  bishops  had  been  accustomed  to  pay  to  the  Roman 
treasury.  The  clergy  urged,  in  this  petition,  that  if  the 
Pope  should  offer  opposition,  then,  “  forasmuch  as  all 
good  Christian  men  be  more  bound  to  obey  God  than 
any  man,  and  forasmuch  as  St.  Paul  willetli  us  to 


22 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


withdraw  ourselves  from  all  such  as  walk  inordinately,  * 
it  should  be  ordained  that  “  the  obedience  of  the  King 
and  his  people  be  withdrawn  from  the  see  of  Rome,” — 
for  which  they  alleged  the  precedent  of  Charles  VI.  of 
France  and  Benedict  XIII.  The  Act  of  Parliament 
which  gave  effect  to  this  desire  of  the  clergy  was  not  at 
once  made  known.  It  was  the  King’s  wish  to  make  one 
more  effort  to  bring  Clement  VII.  round  to  his 
matrimonial  projects,  and  only  when  that  effort  failed 
was  the  royal  assent  formally  given  to  the  Act.1 

In  these  discussions  and  determinations  Thomas 
Cranmer  had  had  no  share,  that  we  know  of,  although 
he  appears  to  have  been  in  England  and  about  the 
person  of  the  King  in  the  first  half  of  the  year  which 
saw  the  Supreme  Headship  acknowledged  by  the 
clergy.2  In  January  of  that  year,  although  he  did  not 
start  till  later,  he  was  appointed  to  the  difficult  post 
of  ambassador  to  the  Emperor,  Charles  V.,  with  a 
special  view  to  the  question  of  the  marriage.  He  had 
recently  been  made  Archdeacon  of  Taunton.3  Two  of  his 
despatches  from  Germany  to  Henry  VIII.  are  extant, 
and  reveal  in  him  considerable  sagacity  and  power  of 
observation.4  He  was  still  engaged  in  the  cause  of  the 
King’s  divorce  among  the  German  princes  and  divines, 
though  with  no  conspicuous  success,  when  he  was  recalled 
to  England,  and  to  the  true  work  of  his  life. 

On  August  23,  1532,  the  liberal-minded  Archbishop 

1  See  Dixon  i.  113,  136,  foil. 

2  Todd  i.  29.  Jenkyns  i.  1. 

3  But  see  Calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Henry  VIII.  iv.  p.  2698, 
according  to  which  Gardiner  held  the  office  at  this  time.  Morice 
(p.  243)  speaks  of  Cranmer’s  promotion  as 'that  of  “the  deanery 
of  Tanton  in  Devonshere,”  which  is  manifestly  inaccurate. 

4  Jenkyns  i.  6 — 16. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


23 


Warham,  the  patron  of  Erasmus,  died.  It  was  under 
him  that  the  clergy  accepted  the  Supreme  Head¬ 
ship  and  made  their  submission.  It  was  under  him 
that  they  had  petitioned  for  separation  from  Rome, 
in  case  the  Pope  should  insist  upon  the  payment  of 
Annates.  But  Warham  was  still  Legate  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  and  before  he  died  he  wrote  a  protest 
against  the  consequences  which  might  flow  from  the 
measures  in  which  he  had  taken  part,  to  the  derogation 
of  the  rights  of  Rome,  or  of  the  prerogatives  and 
liberties  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury.  It  was  too  late, 
however,  to  protest,  and  W arham  s  successor  was 
destined  to  see,  and  to  help  on,  the  logical  lesults  of 
what  had  been  done  under  Warham. 

Most  writers  treat  it  as  a  strange  and  astonishing  thing 
that  the  King  should  have  selected  Thomas  Cranmer  to 
succeed  to  the  vacant  primacy,  as  if  he  had  been  an  un¬ 
known  man.  Doubtless  there  were  other  men  wdio  had 
occupied  a  more  conspicuous  position  in  the  eyes  of  the 
English  Church,  but  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that 
Cranmer’s  own  contemporaries  were  surprised.  An 
important  foreign  embassy  was  the  usual  step  to 
ecclesiastical  promotion.  Tunstall,  Stokesley,  and 
Bonner  successively  passed  from  such  embassies  to  the 
great  see  of  London  ;  Gardiner  to  that  of  Winchester ; 
Lee  to  that  of  York.  It  was  not  altogether  surprising 
that  one  who  had  been  entrusted  with  missions  so 
important  as  those  which  Cranmer  had  of  late  dis¬ 
charged,  should  be  put  into  the  see  of  Canterbury. 
True,  his  career  up  to  the  year  1529  had  been  that  of  a 
quiet  student  of  the.  University,  but  it  was  not  without 
point  that  Cranmer  himself,  when  forced,  a  few  years 
after,  to  take  notice  of  a  foolish  slander  against  his 


24 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


earlier  life,  replied — “If  you  had  but  common  reason 
in  your  heads,  you  that  have  named  me  an  ostler,  you 
might  well  know  that  the  King,  having  in  hand  one  of 
the  hardest  questions  that  was  moved  out  of  the 
Scriptures  these  many  years,  would  not  send  an  ostler 
unto  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  to  the  Emperor’s 
council,  and  other  princes,  to  answer  and  dispute  in  that 
so  hard  a  question.”  1  Undoubtedly  all  open-eyed  men 
must  have  expected  to  see  Cranmer  soon  promoted  to 
some  high  ecclesiastical  position,  and  there  is  probably 
some  grain  of  truth  in  the  tale  which  the  Papist 
Harpsfield  relates  in  a  distorted  form,  that  Arch** 
bishop  Warham,  in  conversation  with  his  nephew, 
had  predicted,  not  without  distress,  that  Cranmer  would 
be  appointed  to  succeed  him.2 

Beyond  all  question,  the  person  who  was  most 
surprised  and  least  pleased  by  the  appointment  was 
Cranmer  himself.  He  cared  nothing  for  honours  and 
dignities,  and  was  probably  only  anxious  to  have  done 
with  his  embassy  and  to  retire  into  private  life  again. 
There  was  the  more  reason  for  his  doing  so,  inasmuch 
as  in  the  course  of  his  wanderings  amongst  the  learned 
men  in  Germany,  “  it  was  his  chance  ”  again  3  “  to  marry 
a  kinswoman  of  one  of  theirs,”  Margaret,  the  niece  of 
the  well-known  Osiander.  Such  careless  statements 
are  made  about  matters  of  this  kind,  that  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  point  out  how  widely  Cranmer’s  marriage 
differed  from  that,  for  instance,  of  Martin  Luther. 
Martin  Luther  was  a  friar ;  his  wife  a  nun.  Both  of 
them  had  believed  themselves  called  by  a  special 

1  Morice  p.  271. 

2  Pretended  Divorce  of  Henry  VIII.  (Camden  Society)  p.  178. 

3  Morice  p.  243, 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


25 


vocation  of  God  to  the  life  of  virginity,  and  had 
solemnly  vowed  that  they  would  never  change  that 
estate.  Cranmer  had  done  nothing  of  the  sort.  The 
canons  of  the  Western  Church,  indeed,  at  the  time 
of  his  ordination  forbade  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  but 
he  had  never  taken  any  vow  of  celibacy.  And  now 
the  entire  authority  of  the  canons  was  shaken  in 
England  by  the  submission  of  the  clergy.  Cranmer 
held  himself  in  conscience  free.  No  doubt  his  residence 
in  Germany,  where  the  marriage  of  the  clergy  had  long 
been  an  accepted  thing  among  liberal-minded  men, 
inclined  him  the  more  to  a  step  which  he  was  well 
assured  that  the  laws  of  God  and  of  the  primitive 
Church  allowed.  He  had,  it  appears,  already  sent  his 
wife  into  England  when  the  tidings  of  his  great 
appointment  reached  him,  and  the  difficulties  which 
his  marriage  would  cause  must  have  added  much  to 
the  reluctance  with  which  he  accepted  the  charge  laid 
upon  him. 

That  reluctance  was  unfeigned.  “  There  was  never 
man  came  more  unwillingly  to  a  bishoprick,  ”he  said  at 
his  last  trial,  “  than  I  did  to  that.  Insomuch  that  when 
King  Henry  did  send  for  me  in  post  that  I  should  come 
over,  I  prolonged  my  journey  by  seven  weeks  at  the 
least,  thinking  that  he  would  be  forgetful  of  me  in  the 
meantime.”  It  was  a  cruel  and  unjust  retort  that  was 
made :  “  The  King  took  you  to  be  a  man  of  good 
conscience,  who  could  not  find  within  all  his  realm 
any  man  that  would  set  forth  his  strange  attempts,  but 
was  enforced  to  send  for  you  in  post  to  come  out  of 
Germany.”  1  No  doubt  it  was  with  a  view  to  subserv¬ 
ing  the  purpose  of  his  divorce,  that  King  Henry  had 

1  Jenkyns  iv.  92. 


26 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


nominated  Cranmer  for  Archbishop.  When  he  thanked 
the  King  for  his  promotion,  Henry  is  reported  to  have 
told  him  that  he  ought  rather  to  thank  Ann.1  But  by 
the  time  that  Cranmer  was  fully  in  his  new  seat,  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  by  a  large  majority,  follow¬ 
ing  the  lead  of  the  Universities,  had  pronounced  the 
marriage  of  Arthur  and  Catherine  to  have  been  a  full 
marriage,  and  that  the  Pope  had  no  power  to  dispense 
in  such  a  case.2  Not  to  speak  of  the  second  order  of  the 
clergy,  probably  half  the  bishops  in  England — certainly 
Gardiner,  Stokesley,  Longland,  Standish,  Yeysey — would 
have  vied  with  each  other  to  pronounce  the  divorce. 
The  Act  forbidding  all  appeals  to  Rome  had  just  been 
passed  by  Parliament,  and  those  bishops  knew  what 
they  were  about.  None  of  them  evinced  any  hesitation 
in  taking  the  King  s  side,  whatever  the  Pope  might  say 
or  do.  But  the  King  chose  a  man  of  larger  capacity 
than  any  of  them  to  do  his  work,  and  Cranmer  moved 
slowly  into  his  place. 

Cranmer  was  consecrated  in  St.  Stephen’s  Chapel  at 
Westminster  on  March  30,  1533,  by  Longland,  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  Yeysey,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  Standish, 
Bishop  of  St.  Asaph.  A  curious  point  was  raised  at 
his  consecration  owing  to  the  anomalous  circumstances 
of  the  moment.  Hitherto,  for  some  centuries,  all 
English  bishops  had  taken  an  oath  of  obedience  to  the 
Pope,  and  then  another  to  the  King,  which  was  intended 
to  deprive  the  former  of  political  significance.  Cranmer 
had,  in  the  natural  course  of  things,  received  the  usual 
bulls  from  Rome  for  his  consecration.  He  proceeded, 
according  to  precedent,  to  take  the  usual  oaths.  But 

1  Bishop  Cranmer  s  Becantacyons  p.  4. 

2  April  5,  1533. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


27 


Henry  VIII.,  as  has  been  said  already,  had  lately  been 
exercised  in  mind  with  regard  to  these  oaths ;  and  it 
seemed  necessary  to  be  more  than  ordinarily  careful 
lest  the  new  Archbishop  should  find  himself,  like 
Wolsey,  involved  in  a  Praemunire.  Accordingly, 
Cranmer  prefaced  his  oath  to  the  Pope  by  a  protest¬ 
ation,  before  a  notary  and  witnesses,  that  he  held  it  to 
be  more  a  form  than  a  reality,  and  that  he  did  not 
intend  by  it  to  bind  himself  to  anything  contrary  to  the 
law  of  God,  or  against  the  King  and  commonwealth  of 
England,  and  the  laws  of  the  same ;  and  that  he 
reserved  to  himself  liberty  to  speak  and  consult  of 
all  things  pertaining  to  the  reformation  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  the  government  of  the  English  Church.1 
A  great  deal  has  been  made  of  this  action  of  the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s,  both  at  the  close  of  his  own  life  and  since. 

“  He  made  a  protestation  one  day,”  cried  Martin  at  his 
last  trial,  “  to  keep  never  a  whit  of  that  which  he  would 
swear  the  next  day.”  Cranmer’ s  answer  was  character¬ 
istic.  “  That  which  I  did,”  he  said,  “  I  did  by  the  best 
learned  men’s  advice  I  could  get  at  that  time.”  2  It  was 
his  weakness  to  endeavour  to  shift  the  responsibility  for 
his  actions  upon  others.  There  would  have  been  some 
force  in  the  rejoinder,  that  all  the  learning  in  the  world 
could  not  rid  him  of  a  perjury,  if  indeed  Cranmer  had 
had  clearly  in  view,  at  the  time  when  he  took  his 
oath,  all  that  he  was  led  to  do  afterwards.  But  at  the 
time,  he  probably  meant  little  less  by  his  oath  to  the 
Pope  than  most  bishops  of  his  age  and  country  did.  A 


1  The  oaths  are  given  in  Jenkyns  iv.  247,  foil.  When  Dixon  i. 
158,  note  f,  says  that  Cranmer  made  certain  omissions  and  inser¬ 
tions  in  the  usual  form,  he  seems  to  he  confounding  the  iorm  of 
oath  before  consecration  with  that  before  receiving  the  pall,  also 
given  by  Jenkyns.  2  Jenkyns  iv.  21, 


28 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Langton  or  a  Chichele  might  as  justly  be  charged  with 
perjury  as  Cranmer. 

It  ought  to  be  clearly  understood  that  Cranmer,  at 
the  time  of  his  accession  to  the  throne  of  Warham,  was 
not  the  Cranmer  of  the  middle  of  Edward  VI.’ s  reign — 
still  less  was  he  the  modem  Protestant  he  is  often  taken 
for.  Though  he  had  most  likely  been  on  the  side  of 
practical  reform  from  the  epoch  of  Erasmus’  sojourn  in 
Cambridge,  and  was  always  open-minded,  even  upon 
doctrinal  subjects,  yet  when  he  was  made  Archbishop 
his  opinions  were  those  of  most  of  the  scholars  of  the 
day.  It  is  true  that  the  one  subject  on  which  he  seems 
to  have  already  made  up  his  mind  most  definitely,  in 
a  reforming  direction,  was  that  of  the  Papal  usurpation 
and  its  practical  consequences.  When,  three  years 
afterwards,  he  preached  upon  this  subject  at  Canter¬ 
bury,  “  I  said,”  he  writes  to  Henry,  “  that  these  many 
years  I  had  daily  prayed  unto  God  that  I  might  see  the 
power  of  Rome  destroyed ;  and  that  I  thanked  God 
that  I  had  now  seen  it  in  this  realm.  And  I  declared 
the  cause  wherefore  I  so  prayed.  For  I  said  that  I 
perceived  the  see  of  Rome  work  so  many  things  con¬ 
trary  to  God’s  honour  and  the  wealth  of  this  realm,  and 
I  saw  no  hope  of  amendment  so  long  as  that  see  reigned 
over  us ;  and  for  this  cause  only  I  had  prayed  unto  God 
continually,  that  we  might  be  separated  from  that 
see.” 1 

It  may  appear  surprising  that  a  man  of  such  senti¬ 
ments  could  take  any  oath  of  obedience  at  all  to  the  see 
from  which  he  daily  prayed  to  be  separated.  But  one  or 
two  facts  deserve  to  be  taken  into  consideration  before 
judgment  is  passed,  even  if  they  are  not  held  sufficient 

1  Jenkyns  i.  170. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE  29 

\ 

to  justify  Cranmer’s  action.  No  one,  of  course,  in  those 
days  was  expected  to  believe  the  Pope  to  be  infallible ; 
and  no  thoughtful  contemporary  of  the  Borgias,  Roveres, 
and  Medicis  could  imagine  that  in  practice  the  Roman 
Curia  was  always  right.  An  oath  of  canonical  obedi¬ 
ence  to  the  Pope  could  not  possibly  bind  a  man  to 
blind  subserviency.  Every  prelate  who  had  taken  part 
in  the  Councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basel,  had 
sworn  the  same  kind  of  oaths ;  yet  they  did  not  feel 
themselves  thereby  precluded  from  criticising  the  au¬ 
thority  to  which  they  swore,  or  even  from  combining  to 
depose  a  Pope  who  gave  scandal.  Archbishop  Cranmer 
desired  by  his  protestation  to  vindicate  for  himself 
the  same  liberty.  He  had,  as  yet,  no  doctrinal  quarrel 
with  the  Popes,  and  no  wish  permanently  to  break  off 
ecclesiastical  communion  with  them.  But  he  felt 
deeply  that  they  were  guilty  of  grave  errors  in  working 
— especially  with  regard  to  the  marriage  law — and  of 
pernicious  usurpations  in  government.  Despairing  of 
their  correction  by  milder  measures,  he  desired  that  the 
English  Church  and  nation  should  repudiate  their 
jurisdiction.  And  yet  he  did  not  deny  that  the  English 
Church  had  a  duty  towards  Rome,  or  that  Rome  had 
rights  which  she  might  justly  claim.  When  the  mo¬ 
ment  for  asserting  those  rights  might  come,  Cranmer’s 
oath  bound  him  not  to  be  wanting.  But  there  were 
many  other  claims  to  be  listened  to,  and  to  make  Rome 
listen  to,  first.  The  King’s  authority,  the  imperial  free¬ 
dom  of  the  nation,  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  of 
Eno-land,  needed  to  be  secured :  and  till  this  end  was 
accomplished,  it  was,  as  Cranmer  protested,  a  matter  of 
form  to  swear  that  he  would  “  be  faithful  and  obedient 
to  the  blessed  Peter,  and  to  the  Holy  Apostolic  Church 


30 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


of  Rome,  and  to  our  Lord  Clement  VII.,  the  Lord 
Pope,  and  to  his  successors  canonically  coming  in,”  and 
the  rest  of  it.  No  oath  to  uphold  “  the  rights,  dignities, 
privileges,  and  authority  ”  of  the  Papacy  could  in  con¬ 
science  oblige  a  man  to  uphold  the  Papacy  in  all  pre¬ 
tensions  that  it  might  choose  to  make.  And  at  any 
rate,  whatever  blame  may  be  thought  to  attach  to 
Archbishop  Cranmer  for  taking  such  an  oath  as  only 
a  legal  form,  attaches  also,  in  a  measure,  to  those 
prelates  who,  after  hearing  his  protestations,  con¬ 
ferred  upon  him  his  sacred  order  and  his  pall,  and 
to  all  who  subsequently  submitted  to  him  as  their 
metropolitan. 

Archbishop  Cranmer  had  only  held  his  crosier  for  a 
few  days  when  he  proceeded  to  the  business  for  which 
he  had  been  chiefly  chosen.  Consecrated  on  March 
30,  he  wrote  to  the  King  on  April  11,  petitioning 
for  leave  to  give  a  final  sentence  upon  the  marriage 
with  Catherine.  The  letter  exists  in  two  forms,  both 
written  in  the  Archbishop’s  own  hand,  and  both  bearing 
signs  of  having  been  sent  to  the  King.  Although  Con¬ 
vocation  had  now  declared  against  the  validity  of  the 
King’s  marriage,  yet,  in  the  country  at  large,  the  King’s 
proceedings  were  regarded  with  detestation.  Cranmer, 
ready  to  draw  upon  himself  all  the  odium,  if  he  could 
relieve  the  King  of  it,  wrote  as  if  on  his  own  motion. 
Doubtless  it  had  been  arranged  beforehand  that  he 
should  do  so,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  letter  of 
request  was  privately  perused  by  the  King  or  Cromwell, 
and  then  rewritten,  to  ensure  that  its  terms  should  be 
perfectly  acceptable.  After  speaking  of  the  way  in 
which  the  subject  was  discussed  throughout  Christen¬ 
dom,  and  the  uncertainty  among  the  ignorant  people 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


31 


of  England  with  regard  to  the  future  succession  to  the 
throne,  Cranmer  continues — 

“  And  forasmuch  as  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God, 
and  your  Grace,  of  your  abundant  goodness  to  me 
showed,  to  call  me,  albeit  a  poor  wretch  and  much  un¬ 
worthy,  unto  this  high  and  chargeable  office  of  Primate 
and  Archbishop  in  this  your  Grace’s  realm,  wherein  I 
beseech  Almighty  God  to  grant  me  His  grace  so  to  use 
and  demean  myself,  as  may  be  standing  with  His 
pleasure  and  the  discharge  of  my  conscience,  and  to 
the  weal  of  this  your  Grace’s  realm :  and  considering 
also  the  obloquy  and  bruit,  which  daily  doth  spring  and 
increase  of  the  clergy  of  this  realm,  and  specially  of  the 
heads  and  presidents  of  the  same,  because  they  in  this 
behalf  do  not  foresee  and  provide  such  convenient 
remedies  as  might  expel  and  put  out  of  doubt  all  such 
inconveniences,  perils,  and  dangers,  as  the  said  rude  and 
ignorant  people  do  speak  and  talk  to  be  imminent :  I, 
your  most  humble  orator  and  beadman,  am,  in  consider¬ 
ation  of  the  premises,  urgently  constrained  at  the  pre¬ 
sent  time  most  humbly  to  beseech  your  most  noble 
Grace,  that  where  the  office  and  duty  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  by  your  and  your  progenitors’  sufferance 
and  grants,  is  to  direct,  order,  judge,  and  determine 
causes  spiritual  in  this  your  Grace’s  realm  ;  and  because 
I  would  be  right  loth,  and  also  it  shall  not  become  me, 
forasmuch  as  your  Grace  is  my  Prince  and  Sovereign, 
to  enterprise  any  part  of  my  office  in  the  said  weighty 
cause  touching  your  Highness,  without  your  Grace  s 
favour  and  license  obtained  in  that  behalf :  it  may 
please,  therefore,  your  most  excellent  Majesty  (con¬ 
siderations  had  to  the  premises,  and  to  my  most  bounden 
duty  towards  your  Highness,  your  realm,  succession, 


32 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


and  posterity,  and  for  the  exoneration  of  my  conscience 
towards  Almighty  God)  to  license  me,  according  to 
mine  office  and  duty,  to  proceed  to  the  examination, 
final  determination,  and  judgment  in  the  said  great 
cause  touching  your  Highness.”  1 

The  Supreme  Head,  in  reply,  commended  the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s  “  good  and  virtuous  intended  purpose”;  declared 
that  he  “  recognised  no  superior  in  earth,  but  only 
God,”  yet  “  because  ye  be,  under  us,  by  God’s  calling  and 
ours,  the  most  spiritual  minister  of  our  spiritual  juris¬ 
diction  within  this  our  realm,”  would  not  refuse  Cran- 
mer’s  “humble  request,  offer,  and  towardness,”  and 
charged  him  to  proceed  with  an  eye  to  God  and  justice 
only,  and  not  to  “  any  earthly  or  worldly  affection.”  2 

The  language  in  which  the  King  spoke  of  his  relation 
to  the  primacy  was  not  the  language  of  a  Catholic  lay¬ 
man  ;  but  even  if  it  galled,  which  is  improbable,  it  was 
not  openly  resented,  and  Cranmer  prepared  to  act 
upon  it. 

“After  the  Convocation  in  that  behalf,”  he  writes 
in  a  letter  to  a  friend  abroad,  “  had  determined  and 
agreed  according  to  the  former  consent  of  the  Universi- 
ties,  it  was  thought  convenient  by  the  King  and  his 
learned  counsel,  that  I  should  repair  unto  Dunstable, 
which  is  within  four  miles  unto  Ampthill,  where  the 
Lady  Catherine  keepeth  her  house,  and)  there  to  call 
her  before  me  to  hear  the  final  sentence  in  the  said 
matter.  Notwithstanding,”  he  continues  with  a  some¬ 
what  naive  surprise,  “  she  would  not  at  all  obey  there¬ 
unto  ;  for  when  she  was  by  Dr.  Lee  cited  to  appear  by 
a  day,  she  utterly  refused  the  same,  saying  that  inas- 

1  Jenkyns  i.  22  ;  Dixon  i.  160. 

2  The  reply  is  given  in  Collier  ix.  103. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


33 


much  as  her  cause  was  before  the  Pope,  she  would  have 
none  other  judge,  and  therefore  would  not  take  me  for 
her  judge.”  1 

The  Archbishop,  notwithstanding,  held  a  court,  and, 
the  serving  of  the  summons  having  been  proved, 
declared  the  Lady  Catherine  contumacious.  He  was 
informed  by  the  King’s  counsel  (of  whom  Bishop 
Gardiner  was  the  chief)  that  her  contumacy  pre¬ 
cluded  her  from  further  monition  to  appear ;  and 
this  simplified  and  accelerated  the  course  of  affairs 
beyond  Cranmer’s  expectation.  Henry  and  Cromwell 
were  urging  him  on,  as  if  they  half  distrusted  him. 
“  Where  I  never  yet,”  he  wrote  back  to  Cromwell, 
“  went  about  to  injure  willingly  any  man  living,  I  would 
be  loth  now  to  begin  with  my  Prince,  and  defraud 
him  of  his  trust  in  me.  And  therefore  I  have  used  all 
the  expedition  that  I  might  conveniently  ” — that  is, 
with  propriety — “use  in  the  King’s  behalf,  and  have 
brought  the  matter  to  a  final  sentence,  to  be  given 
upon  Friday  next  ensuing.  At  which  time  I  trust  so 
to  endeavour  myself  further  in  this  behalf  as  shall 
become  me  to  do,  to  the  pleasure  of  Almighty  God  and 
the  mere  truth  of  the  matter.”  Cranmer  excuses  him¬ 
self  for  not  having  written  before  to  Cromwell  on  the 
subject,  and  adds — “  For  divers  considerations  I  do  think 
it  right  expedient  that  the  matter  and  the  process  of  the 
same  be  kept  secret  for  a  time,  therefore  I  pray  you  to 
make  no  relation  thereof,  as  I  know  well  you  will  not. 
For  if  the  noble  Lady  Catherine  should  by  the  bruit  of 
this  matter  in  the  mouths  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
country,  or  by  her  friends  or  counsel  hearing  of  this 
bruit,  be  moved,  stirred,  counselled,  or  persuaded,  to 

1  Jenkyns  i.  23. 


D 


34 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


appear  before  me  in  the  time,  or  afore  the  time,  of 
sentence,  I  should  be  thereby  greatly  stayed  and  let  in 
the  process,  and  the  King’s  grace’s  counsel  here  pre¬ 
sent  ” — -Bishop  Gardiner  and  the  rest — “  shall  be  much 
uncertain  what  shall  be  then  further  done  therein.  For 
a  great  bruit  and  voice  of  the  people  in  this  behalf 
might  perchance  move  her  to  do  that  thing  herein, 
which  peradventure  she  would  not  do,  if  she  shall  hear 
little  of  it.”  1 

This  policy  of  secrecy  and  haste  was  not  a  noble 
policy ;  but  any  just  judgment  of  Cranmer’s  share  in  it 
will  be  tempered  by  the  recollection  that  he  was  at  any 
rate  not  the  author  of  the  policy.  It  had  been  pursued 
throughout  by  the  King’s  agents,  from  Wolsey  down¬ 
wards.  Cranmer  was  not  even  the  first  to  apply  it  on 
this  particular  occasion,  but  Gardiner  and  his  brother 
counsel.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  Catherine  was  not 
left  ignorant  of  what  was  being  done.  She  had  deliber¬ 
ately  chosen  not  to  plead  before  the  Archbishop’s  court, 
and  must  have  been  well  aware  what  would  be  the 
consequences.  What  Cranmer  dreaded  was  not  that 
Catherine  should  know  ;  it  was  that  the  public  should 
know,  and  that  general  indignation  should  force  Cathe¬ 
rine  to  abandon  her  position,  and  should  induce  her 
after  all  to  acknowledge  his  tribunal,  which  would  delay 
matters  once  more.  Cranmer  knew  well  that  there  were 
no  fresh  arguments  to  be  brought  forward  on  Catherine  s 
side,  and  that  all  that  she  could  do  would  be  to  appeal 
again  from  the  court  of  the  Metropolitan  to  that  of  the 
Pope — an  appeal  which  the  law  of  England  had  now 
by  anticipation  disallowed.  One  who  is  not  a  friend 
of  Archbishop  Cranmer’s  has  the  candour  to  say  of  his 

1  Jenkyns  i.  25. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


35 


action  in  this  matter,  that  “  no  judge,  lay  or  ecclesiastical, 
at  the  time,  with  the  exception  of  More,  would  have  acted 
otherwise.’' 1  Fifteen  days  were  allowed  to  Catherine 
in  which  to  repent  of  her  contumacy ;  but  she  did  not 
repent.  “  The  morrow  after  Ascension  Day,”  writes 
Cranmer,  “  I  gave  final  sentence  therein,  how  that  it 
was  indispensable  for  the  Pope  to  license  any  such 
marriages.”  2 

That  was  the  light  in  which  Cranmer  regarded  the 
matter.  He  was  reviewing  an  unlawful  decision  of  Pope 
Julius  II.,  not  pronouncing  judgment  upon  an  innocent 
and  defenceless  woman.  The  Archbishop  was  perfectly 
upright  and  conscientious  in  delivering  such  a  sentence  ; 
but  it  is  to  be  regretted  that,  in  his  desire  to  satisfy  the 
King,  and  to  teach  the  Papacy  a  lesson,  he  should 
have  allowed  himself  to  appear  unfeeling  towards  “  the 
noble  Lady  Catherine.”  Those  were,  indeed,  days  when 
men  were  not  disposed  to  give  effusive  utterance  to 
their  sentiments  about  one  another’s  political  misfor¬ 
tunes;  and  it  is  possible  to  be  too  hard  upon  Sir 
Thomas  More’s  language  on  the  fall  of  Wolsey,  or  on 
the  Nun  of  Kent;  or  upon  Edward  YI.’s  language  on 
the  fall  of  Somerset,  as  well  as  upon  that  of  Cranmer 
with  regard  to  Catherine.  Besides,  we  possess  only 
scanty  fragments  of  Cranmer’s  familiar  correspondence. 
But  Cranmer  could,  when  he  chose,  express  his  senti¬ 
ments  with  remarkable  freedom,  even  to  Henry  VIII. 
He  did  so  in  the  case  of  Ann  Boleyn ;  he  did  so  in  the 
case  of  Cromwell ;  it  is  to  be  wished  that  he  had  done 

1  Brewer  ii.  189,  note.  Mr.  Brewer  is  mistaken,  however,  in 
what  he  says.  Catherine  had  already  been  pronounced  contumax , 
and  the  fear  was  lest  she  should  repent  of  her  contumacy. 

2  Jenkyns  i.  28.  It  was  May  23. 


36 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


so  in  the  case  of  that  more  deserving  woman,  who  had 
been  the  victim  of  the  political  schemes  of  Julius,  and 
Ferdinand,  and  Henry  VII.,  to  be  afterwards  flung  away 
by  the  so-called  husband  to  whom  they  had  married  her. 

A  really  high-minded  survey  of  the  situation  would 
have  suggested  that,  although  the  marriage  between 
Henry  and  Catherine  had  been  null  from  the  beginning, 
and  could  not  be  made  valid  by  any  length  of  con¬ 
tinuance,  or  by  any  sanction  of  ecclesiastical  and  state 
authorities,  yet  the  parties  to  it  were  bound  to  each  other 
by  honour  and  affection,  and  could  not  rightly  consider 
themselves  free  to  act  independently.  They  were 
brother  and  sister,  and  it  was  right  that  they  should 
cease  to  live  as  if  they  were  man  and  wife ;  but  neither 
of  them  ought  to  have  thought  of  entering  upon  a 
legitimate  marriage  without  the  fall  consent  of  the 
other.  Such  a  view,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  not  put 
forward  by  any  of  those  who  voted  in  Convocation,  or 
Senate-house,  or  Parliament,  for  the  dissolution  of 
Henry’s  union  with  Catherine.  If  it  had  been  put 
forward,  Henry  would  certainly  never  have  listened  to 
it ;  and,  indeed,  granted  the  nullity  of  the  first  union, 
no  one  could  have  insisted  upon  prohibiting  a  second. 

Four  months  at  least  before  Cranmer’s  sentence 
was  given— perhaps  as  early  as  November  14 — Henry 
had  been  privately  married  to  Ann  Boleyn.  The 
marriage  had  fov  a  while  been  kept  a  secret  fiom  the 
Archbisliop-Elect.  But  as  soon  as  he  knew  of  it,  he 
approved  it.  In  his  letter  from  Dunstable  to  Crom¬ 
well,  written  before  his  final  sentence  on  the  marriage 
with  Catherine  had  been  pronounced,  he  already  speaks 
of  Ann  as  “ the  Queen’s  Grace.”1  A  day  or  two  later, 

1  Jenkyns  i.  26. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


37 


lie  publicly  confirmed  her  marriage;  and  it  only  remained, 
“on  the  Thursday  next  before  the  feast  of  Pentecost; ” 
for  him  to  crown  her  with  extraordinary  pomp,  “  ap¬ 
parelled  in  a  robe  of  purple  velvet,  sustained  of  each 
side  with  two  bishops,1  she  in  her  hair,”  and  already 
“  somewhat  big  with  child.” 2 

It  is  a  wanton  insult  to  the  memory  of  Cranmer  to 
suggest,  as  Mr.  Brewer  has  done,3  that  he  was  the  author 
of  the  monstrous  proposition  that  the  Pope  should  give 
Henry  leave  to  marry  again  without  pronouncing  upon 
the  validity  or  invalidity  of  his  marriage  with  Catherine. 
So  low  had  the  moral  feeling  of  Rome  fallen,  that  the 
Pope  listened  without  abhorrence  to  the  proposal.  It 
is  right  that  this  should  be  borne  in  mind  when 
men  condemn,  in  unmeasured  terms,  the  conduct  of 
Luther,  Melanchthon,  and  Bucer,  who,  seven  years 
after  Henry’s  marriage  with  Ann,  gave  their  sanction 
to  the  bigamy  of  a  German  prince.  The  traditions 
of  Rome  and  the  new  Gospel  light  of  Germany  were 
alike  ready  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  desires 
of  high-placed  sinners.  But  Cranmer  was  not  infected 
by  any  such  notions.  “  You  know,”  he  wrote  to 
Osiander,  his  wife’s  uncle,  after  Philip  of  Hesse  had 
been  allowed  to  enter  into  that  adulterous  estate,  “how 
men  here  always  come  to  ask  me  to  explain  what  goes 
on  among  you  ;  and  there  are  often  things  which  I  can 
neither  deny,  nor  without  a  blush  confess,  and  which  I 
cannot  think  how  you  can  allow.  Not  to  speak  of  your 
permitting  the  sons  of  great  nobles  to  have  concubines, 
lest  old  hereditary  estates  should  be  broken  up  through 
lack  of  legitimate  children,  what  excuse  can  you  possibly 

1  Stokesley  and  Gardiner,  2  Jenkyns  i.  31. 

3  Brewer  ii.  223. 


38 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


offer  for  allowing  divorce  and  remarriage  while  botli 
the  divorced  parties  are  alive,  or  what  is  still  worse, 
without  any  divorce  at  all,  the  marriage  of  a  man  to 
more  than  one  wife  ?  By  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles, 
and  of  Christ  Himself,  marriage  is  only  of  one  with  one, 
nor  can  those  who  have  been  thus  joined  contract  new 
unions  except  after  the  death  of  one  or  the  other 
partner.”  He  adds,  with  justice,  that  it  is  more  like 
Mahometanism  than  Christianity  to  allow  such  things, 
and  affirms  that  he  wculd  be  sorry  to  have  even  a  slight 
acquaintance  with  the  professors  of  the  new  Gospel,  if 
such  are  the  fruits  which  it  is  to  produce.1  It  is  clear 
that  Cranmer  in  no  way  regarded  the  separation  of 
Henry  from  Catherine  as  a  divorce,  or  his  marriage 
with  Ann  as  anything  but  a  first  marriage. 

News  reached  England  not  many  weeks  aftei  the 
coronation  of  Ann,  that  the  Pope  was  preparing  to 
avenge  his  slighted  authority  by  such  weapons  as  were 
possible  for  him.  Henry  VIII.,  on  his  part,  composed, 
and  at  length,  by  the  hands  of  his  agent  Bonner,  de¬ 
livered  to  Clement  VII.,  at  Marseilles,  an  appeal  from 
Rome  to  the  General  Council  of  Christendom.  He 
advised  Cranmer  to  do  the  like.  It  is  interesting,  in 
view  of  the  later  history  of  men  and  things,  to  read 
the  letter  in  which  Cranmer  forwards  to  the  man  who 
was  afterwards,  by  Papal  authority,  to  degrade  him,  an 
appeal  from  the  Pope  like  that  wdiich  he  delivered  to 
Bonner  at  his  degradation.  “  I  stand  in  dread,  wiote 
the  champion  of  the  rights  of  Canterbury,  “  lest  our 
holy  Father  the  Pope  do  intend  to  make  some  manner 
of  prejudicial  process  against  me  and  my  Church ;  and 
therefore  I  have  provoked  from  his  Holiness  to  the 

1  Jenkyns  i.  303. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


39 


General  Council.  Which  my  provocation,  and  a  pro¬ 
curacy  under  my  seal,  I  do  send  unto  you  herewith, 
desiring  you  right  heartily  to  have  me  commended  to 
my  Lord  of  Winchester,1  and  with  his  advice  and 
counsel  to  intimate  the  said  provocation  after  the  best 
manner  that  his  Lordship  and  you  shall  think  most 
expedient  for  me.”  He  adds  that  even  if  the  King 
should,  percase,  forget  to  write,  as  he  intended,  to 
demand  Bonner’s  services  for  the  Archbishop,  Bonner’s 
goodness  will  make  him  contented  to  take  this  pains  at 
Cranmer’s  desire  alone.2 

The  time  came  when  Cranmer  had  to  pay  for  any¬ 
thing  that  was  unworthy  in  his  conduct  with  regard  to 
the  divorce ;  and  it  came  long  before  he  suffered  at  the 
hands  of  the  injured  Catherine’s  daughter.  Three 
years  from  the  time  when  he  crowned  Ann  as  Queen, 
he  received  a  sudden  summons  to  come  up  from  the 
country  to  Lambeth,  and  not  to  stir  from  his  house. 
He  found  that  the  Queen  had  been  under  trial  before 
the  Council,  on  the  most  atrocious  charges,  and  had 
been  committed  to  the  Tower.  Cranmer  was  deeply 
attached  to  Ann.  Forbidden  to  approach  the  King  in 
person,  he  seized  his  pen  and  wrote  to  him  one  of  his 
simple  quivering  letters — at  once  more  bold  than  most 
men  would  have  dared,  and  more  timid  than  most 
men  would  have  cared  to  write.  He  wrote,  he  said, 
somewhat  to  “suppress  the  deep  sorrows”  of  his  Grace’s 
heart,  and  to  help  him  to  take  them  “both  patiently 
and  thankfully.” 

“  I  am  in  such  perplexity,”  he  said,  “  that  my  mind  is 
clean  amazed,  for  I  never  had  better  opinion  in  woman 
than  I  had  in  her,  which  maketh  me  think  that  she 

1  Gardiner.  2  Jenkyns  i.  71. 


40 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


should  not  be  culpable.  And  again  I  think  that  your 
Highness  would  not  have  gone  so  far,  except  she  had  been 
surely  culpable.  Now  I  think  that  your  Grace  best 
knoweth,  that  next  unto  your  Grace,  I  was  most  bound 
unto  her  of  all  creatures  living.  Wherefore  I  most  humbly 
beseech  your  Grace  to  suffer  me  in  that  which  both  God  s 
law,  nature,  and  also  her  kindness  bindeth  me  unto ; 
that  is,  that  I  may  with  your  Grace’s  favour  wish  and 
pray  for  her  that  she  may  declare  herself  inculpable  and 
innocent.”  He  added  that  if  the  Queen  proved  to  be 
guilty,  she  would  deserve  hatred  in  proportion  to  the 
scandal  which  her  crimes  would  bring  upon  the  Gospel 
which  she  professed.1 

This  letter  was  written  on  May  3.  Before  it  was 
despatched,  the  Archbishop  was  summoned  to  the  Star 
Chamber,  and  there  informed  of  “  such  things  as  ” 
Henry’s  “  pleasure  was  they  should  make  ”  him  “  privy 
to.”  The  Archbishop  did  not  alter  what  he  had  written, 
but  added  a  postscript,  in  which  he  expressed  himself  as 
“  most  bounden”  to  the  King  for  making  such  a  com¬ 
munication,  and  “  exceedingly  sorry  that  such  faults  can 
be  proved  by2  the  Queen.”  On  May  15  the  Queen 
was  found  guilty  by  the  peers,  and  condemned  to  be 
burned  or  beheaded,  as  the  King  might  choose.  With 
this  condemnation  Cranmer  was  not  concerned.  His 
part  in  the  tragedy  was  yet  to  come.  On  the  day 
after  Ann’s  trial,  he  was  sent  to  visit  her  in  the  Tower, 
to  receive  her  confession.  The  next  day,  May  17  the 
King  .and  Queen  were  cited  to  appear  before  him  at 
Lambeth,  to  answer  to  certain  inquiries  for  their  souls’ 
health.  The  court  sat  in  the  under  chapel  of  the 
palace.  The  proceedings  occupied  but  two  hours.  It 
1  Jenkyns  i.  163.  2  Against. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


41 


is  asserted  in  the  new  Act  to  regulate  the  succession 1 
that  Ann,  probably  by  her  proctor,  made  damaging 
admissions  before  the  Archbishop’s  court ;  but  what 
those  admissions  were  remained  undivulged.  On 
grounds  which  are  to  this  day  unknown,  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  pronounced  that  the  marriage  between  the  King 
and  Ann  had  never  been  valid,  and  that  the  child  born 
of  it,  his  god-daughter  Elizabeth,  was  illegitimate.  Two 
days  later  the  unhappy  Queen  was  put  to  death,  the 
Archbishop  (if  we  may  trust  a  Scotch  divine  who  was 
with  him  that  morning)  still  believing  her  to  be 
innocent.2 

Nor  was  this  the  last  occasion  on  which  Cranmer 
was  required  to  take  part  in  the  miserable  business  of 
his  master’s  wives.  In  four  years’  time — April,  1540 — he 
set  his  seal  to  a  document  which  pronounced  yet  another 
of  the  marriages  invalid — that  of  Anne  of  Cleves. 
The  grounds  in  this  case  are  known ;  and  certainly 
they  were  shamefully  inadequate.  The  Lady  Anne 
was  found  to  have  been  precontracted  to  a  prince  of 
the  house  of  Lorraine, — although  this  was  known  at 
the  time  of  the  marriage,  and  had  not  been  con¬ 
sidered  sufficient  to  hinder  it ; — and  the  King  pleaded 
that  he  had  never  inwardly  consented  to  the  union, 
and  that  he  was  incapable  of  fulfilling  its  conditions, 

1  Given  in  Dixon  i.  392. 

2  Tlie  story  is  told  in  Dixon  i.  388.  Aless  affirmed  that 
Cranmer  said  to  him — “  She  Avho  has  been  Queen  of  England  on 
earth  will  this  day  become  a  Queen  in  heaven,”  Hook  ( Life  i. 
506)  thinks  that  if  Cranmer  really  said  this,  his  conduct  was 
“  unspeakably  bad.”  But  it  was  quite  possible  for  him  to  become 
convinced  that  the  marriage  with  Ann  was  invalid,  without  being 
convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  crimes  for  which  she  was  beheaded. 
The  two  things  were  entirely  separate.  Aless’s  narrative,  how¬ 
ever,  is  evidently  inaccurate  in  some  particulars,  and  seems  very 
improbable  altogether. 


42 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


and  had  never  attempted  to  fulfil  them — though  for 
six  months  their  life  together  had,  in  the  world’s  eye, 
been  that  of  married  people.  It  is  too  probable  that 
(as  Burnet  says) 1  Archbishop  Cranmer  had  not  now 
“  courage  enough  to  swim  against  the  stream,”  which 
was  fast  sweeping  Cromwell  to  execution  ;  but  it  must 
be  remembered,  in  mitigation  of  judgment  upon  him, 
that  he  would  have  stood  absolutely  alone,  if  he  had 
refused  to  act  as  he  did.  Not  only  had  the  Convocation 
of  both  provinces  reported  to  Parliament  that  the 
marriage  was  void,  and  Parliament  had  ratified  the 
decision — Bishop  Gardiner  taking  a  leading  part  in 
this  case  as  in  the  case  of  Catherine — but  the  Lady 
Anne  herself  perfectly  acquiesced  in  the  truth  of  the 
allegations  made,  and  was  quite  content  to  abide  by  the 
decision.  When  afterwards  the  Duke  of  Cleves  was 
anxious  to  effect  “  a  reconciliation  ”  of  the  matrimony, 
and  to  obtain  the  Archbishop’s  support,  Cranmer  utterly 
refused  to  give  him  any  encouragement,  and  instantly 
reported  the  occurrence  direct  to  the  King.2 

It  was  only  some  year  and  a  half  after  Henry’s  mar¬ 
riage  with  Anne  of  Cleves,  that  it  became  Cranmer’ s 
duty  to  inform  the  King,  who  had  lately  given  solemn 
thanks  for  the  happiness  of  his  marriage  with  Catherine 
Howard,  that  he  had  received  intelligence  of  the 
gravest  kind  regarding  the  Queen’s  moral  conduct 
before  her  marriage.  His  compassionate  heart  was 
torn  when  the  task  was  assigned  to  him  of  extract  in  or 
from  the  young  Queen  an  account  of  what  had  passed 
in  those  days  between  her  and  Dereliam.  It  seems 
from  his  language  to  Henry  VIII.,  that  he  visited  her 

1  Ilist.  Ref.  iii.  Appendix  9. 

2  Jenkyns  i.  312. 


UNTIL  THE  DIVORCE 


43 


time  after  time,1  and  was  kept  whole  days  at  the  dis¬ 
tressing  work.  “  At  my  repair  unto  the  Queen  s  Grace, 
I  found  her  in  such  lamentation  and  heaviness,  as  I 
never  saw  no  creature  ;  so  that  it  would  have  pitied  any 
man’s  heart  in  the  world  to  have  looked  upon  her ;  and 
in  that  vehement  rage  she  continued,  as  they  informed 
me  which  be  about  her,  from  my  departure  from  her  to 
my  return  again ;  and  then  I  found  her,  as  I  do  suppose, 
far  entered  toward  a  frenzy.”  2  At  length  she  was 
partially  calmed  by  a  message  which  he  was  commis¬ 
sioned  to  bring  her  from  the  King,  promising  her  mercy 
if  she  would  make  a  full  confession.  The  promise, 
however,  was  delusive ;  and  the  fifth  wife,  like  the 
second,  perished  by  the  axe  on  Tower  Green. 

1  “  Now  I  do  use  her  thus  ;  when  I  do  see  her  in  any  such 
extreme  brayds,  I  do  travail  with  her  to  know  the  cause  ;  .  .  . . 
and  so  I  did  at  that  time.” 

2  Jenkyns  i.  308. 


CHAPTER  II 


CRANMER  AND  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 

The  divorce  of  Catherine  of  Aragon  was  extremely 
unpopular  in  the  country.  Not  only  were  men’s 
generous  impulses  on  the  side  of  the  oppressed  Queen, 
but  all  that  was  most  conservative  in  religion  espoused 
her  cause,  which  was  practically  that  of  the  Pope. 
While  the  matter  was  still  under  discussion,  sermons 
against  the  divorce  were  constantly  preached  in  the 
churches.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  new  Primate 
was  to  inhibit  all  manner  of  preaching  in  his  own 
diocese,  and  to  require  his  suffragans  to  do  much  the 
same.  It  is  said  that  Cranmer  became  so  much 
detested  for  his  action  in  the  matter  of  the  divorce  as 
to  require  special  protection  when,  in  1533,  he  began 
to  visit  the  city  and  diocese  of  Canterbury.1 

The  hostile  feeling  against  the  King’s  proceedings 
had  found  a  centre  in  the  metropolitical  city,  round  the 
person  of  a  nun  of  St.  Sepulchre’s,  Elizabeth  Barton, 
the  “  Holy  Maid  of  Kent.”  This  woman,  belonging  to 
that  well-known  class  of  religionists,  of  whom  it  is 
difficult  to  say  how  far  they  really  believe  in  their  own 
inspiration,  had  acquired  a  strange  influence  as  the 

1  Hook  i.  479.  Hook  has,  however,  made  too  much  of  the 
Injunction  to  which  he  refers,  which  seems  to  be  quite  general  in 
character. 


44 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


45 


utterer  of  prophecies.  In  some  of  these  she  had 
denounced  judgment  upon  the  King,  who  was,  according 
to  her,  barely  to  survive  if  he  should  put  away  Catherine 
and  marry  another,  and  from  that  moment  forth  would 
have  no  claim  to  his  subjects’  allegiance.  Henry’s  was 
not  a  reign  in  which  such  speeches  were  left  to  refute 
themselves ;  and  real  danger  might  be  thought  to 
connect  itself  with  the  Nun  of  Kent,  because  of  the 
high  character  and  position  of  many  of  those  who  were 
brought  in  contact  with  her.  She  had  been  received 
by  Wolsey  and  by  Warham,  and  by  the  King  himself. 
Fisher  and  More  had  both  conversed  with  her.  The 
powerful  convent  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  supplied 
her  with  confessors  and  directors  from  amongst  its 
principal  and  most  learned  members.  She  was  in 
active  correspondence  with  the  Charterhouses  of 
London  and  Sheen,  with  the  Brigittines  of  Sion  and 
the  Observants  of  Greenwich  and  Canterbury,  in  short, 
with  all  that  was  most  respected  in  the  monastic 
religion  of  the  day.  Her  influence  was  real,  and  widely 
felt.  “  I  think,”  wrote  the  Archbishop  to  a  friend, 
“that  she  did  marvellously  stop  the  going  forward  of 
the  Kino’s  marriage,  insomuch  that  she  wrote  letters  to 
the  Pope  calling  upon  him  in  God’s  behalf  to  stop  it. 
She  had  also  communication  with  my  Lord  Cardinal 
and  with  my  Lord  of  Canterbury,  my  predecessor,  in 
the  matter,  and  in  mine  opinion  with  her  feigned  visions 
and  godly  threatenings  stayed  them  very  much.”  1 
It  was  clear  that  Elizabeth  Barton  could  not  be 
allowed  to  continue  thus.  About  midsummer,  1533, 
Cranmer  wrote  to  the  Prioress  of  St.  Sepulchre’s — 

“  Sister  Prioress,  in  my  hearty  wise  I  commend  me 

1  Jenkyns  i.  81. 


46 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


unto  you.  And  so  likewise  will  that  you  do  repair 
unto  me  to  my  manor  of  Otteforde,  and  bring  with  you 
your  nun  which  was  some  time  at  Courtupstrete,  against 
Wednesday  next  coming :  and  that  ye  fail  not  herein 
in  any  wise.’5 1 

A  letter  from  the  Dean  of  the  Arches  tells  Cromwell 
how  the  Archbishop  at  this  interview  humoured  the 
nun,  by  granting  her  leave  to  go  for  a  week  to  Court- 
upstreet  in  order  that  a  new  trance  might  throw  light 
upon  matters  which  the  last  had  left  uncertain.  “  My 
Lord  doth  yet  but  dally  with  her,  as  [if]  he  did  believe 
her  every  word.’5  2  Whether  to  Cranmer  himself,  or 
shortly  after  at  the  more  terrible  tribunal  of  Crom¬ 
well,  the  unhappy  woman  confessed,  or  was  thought 
to  have  confessed,  that  her  visions  were  a  tissue  of 
impostures ;  “  that  she  never  had  vision  in  all  her  life, 
but  all  that  ever  she  said  was  feigned  of  her  own 
imagination,  only  to  satisfy  the  minds  of  them  the 
which  resorted  unto  her,  and  to  obtain  worldly  praise.5’ 3 
She  and  her  accomplices  were  made  to  do  public 
penance  at  St.  Paul’s  Cross  and  at  Canterbury  Cathe¬ 
dral  ; 4  but  the  ecclesiastical  penalty  was  not  deemed 
sufficient.  A  bill  of  attainder  was  brought  in  against 
them  early  in  the  following  year;  and  on  April  20, 
Elizabeth  Barton  and  her  principal  associates  were 
hanged  and  beheaded  at  Tyburn. 

The  dismay  was  great  at  Canterbury ;  and  Cranmer, 
at  the  request  of  the  Prior  and  Convent  of  Christ 
Church,  wrote  to  the  King  on  their  behalf.  He  found 

1  Jenkyns  i.  43. 

2  Calendar  of  State  Papers  vi.  967. 

3  Cranmer  to  Hawkyns,  Jenkyns  i.  82. 

4  Chronicle  of  St.  Augustine’s,  Canterbury,  in  Narratives  of  the 
Reformation  p.  280. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


47 


them,  he  said,  “as  conformable  and  reformable  as  any 
number”  with  whom  he  had  ever  communed.  They 
lamented  that  any  of  their  congregation  should  so  have 
ordered  himself.  Only  few  had  been  at  all  concerned 
with  the  nun,  “  and  they,  with  the  exception  of  Dr. 
Booking,  who  misled  them,  men  of  young  years  and  of 
less  knowledge  and  experience.”  The  Prior  and  “  his 
brethren,  the  saddest  and  seniors  of  the  house,  with  all 
the  other  young  sort,”  regarded  the  King’s  pleasure  as 
greatly  as  anything  else  in  the  world.  They  offered  the 
King  a  present  of  two  or  three  hundred  pounds — worth 
at  least  ten  times  as  much  now — in  hopes  that  he 
would  be  gracious  to  them,  and  not  visit  the  fault  of  a 
few  upon  the  whole  company.  Cranmer  most  humbly 
besought  his  Highness  to  be  gracious  and  merciful  unto 
them,  “  the  rather  for  my  poor  intercession ;  ” 1  and  his 
request  was  granted,  at  least  for  the  moment. 

Two  of  the  noblest  names  in  English  history  had 
been  inserted  in  the  bill  against  the  Nun  of  Kent — 
the  names  of  Bishop  Fisher  and  Sir  Thomas  More. 
More  had  little  difficulty  in  clearing  himself  of  any 
complicity  with  “  the  lewd  nun,”  “  that  housewife,”  “  a 
false  deceiving  hypocrite,”  as  with  somewhat  unnecessary 
severity  he  terms  her.2  Fisher  was  found  guilty  of 
“misprision  of  treason,”  for  not  having  revealed  the 
nun’s  disloyal  utterances,  and  was  condemned  to  pay 
a  fine.  It  was  the  first  serious  attempt  on  the  part  of 
Cromwell  and  the  King  to  be  rid  of  the  two  chief 
opponents  of  their  proceedings  :  if  Archbishop  Cranmer’s 
advice  had  been  taken,  it  would  have  been  the  last. 

1  Jenkyns  i.  76. 

2  Bridgett’s  More  p.  323  (2nd  cd.)  ;  Gasquet’s  English 
Monasteries  i.  143. 


48 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


The  Act  of  Succession,  passed  at  the  end  of  March 
1534,  entailed  the  Crown  upon  the  children  of  Ann 
Boleyn,  declaring  the  King’s  former  marriage  to  have 
been  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  and  therefore  not  to 
be  made  good  by  any  dispensation.  “  God  give  grace,” 
said  More  to  his  son-in-law,  when  first  the  marriage 
with  Ann  was  made  public,  “  that  these  matters 
within  a  while  be  not  confirmed  with  oaths.”  This 
was  precisely  what  the  Act  of  Succession  required.  It 
did  not  contain  any  form  of  oath ;  but  a  form  was  soon 
provided  by  letters  patent,  which  not  only  asserted 
what  was  asserted  in  the  Act  of  Parliament  and  its 
preamble,  but  also  renounced  aany  other  (besides  the 
King’s  Majesty)  within  this  realm,  or  foreign  authority, 
prince,  or  potentate,”  and  repudiated  any  oath  which 
might  have  been  previously  taken  to  any  other  person 
or  persons.1  Commissioners  were  appointed  to  administer 
the  oath ;  and  chief  among  them  was  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury. 

Sir  Thomas  More  has  left  us,  in  a  letter  to  his 
daughter,  a  vivid  description  of  the  scene  at  Lambeth, 
when  he  appeared  there  to  be  sworn,  before  the  Arch¬ 
bishop,  the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Secretary  Cromwell, 
and  the  Abbot  of  Westminster.  When  he  told  the 
commissioners  that  he  “  would  not  deny  to  swear  to  the 
succession,”  but  that  he  could  not  take  the  oath  as  it 
stood,  “I  was  commanded,”  he  says,  “  to  go  down 
into  the  garden,  and  thereupon  I  tarried  in  the  old 
burned  chamber  that  looketh  into  the  garden,  and 
would  not  go  down  because  of  the  heat.  In  that  time 
I  saw  Mr.  Dr.  Latimer  come  into  the  garden,  and 
there  walked  he  with  divers  other  doctors  and  chaplains 

1  Dixon  i.  205. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  49 

of  my  Lord  of  Canterbury.  And  very  merry  I  saw  him, 
for  he  laughed,  and  took  one  or  twain  about  the  neck 
so  handsomely,  that  if  they  had  been  women,  I  would 
have  weened  he  had  been  waxen  wanton/5  He  saw  one 
clergyman,  for  refusing  the  oath,  “  gentlemanly  sent 
straight  unto  the  Tower 55 ;  the  rest,  who  swore,  including 
almost  all  the  clergy  of  London,  “sped  apace  to  their 
great  comfort;  so  far  forth  that  Master  Yicar  of 
Croydon,  either  for  gladness,  or  for  dryness,  or  else  that 
it  might  be  seen  quod  ille  notus  or  at  ypontifici,  went 
to  my  Lord’s  buttery  bar  and  called  for  drink  valde 
familiar  iter When  More  was  called  up  again,  a 
notable  conversation  took  place  between  him  and  the 
Archbishop.  “My  Lord  of  Canterbury,  taking  hold 
upon  that  that  I  said,  that  I  condemned  not  the  con¬ 
sciences  of  them  that  swear,  said  unto  me  that  it 
appeared  well,  that  I  did  not  take  it  for  a  very  sure 
thing  and  a  certain  that  I  might  not  lawfully  swear  it, 
but  rather  as  a  thing  uncertain  and  doubtful.  ‘  But 
then,5  said  my  Lord,  /you  know  for  a  certainty  that 
you  be  bound  to  obey  your  Sovereign  Lord,  your  King. 
And  therefore  are  you  bound  to  leave  off  the  doubt  of 
your  unsure  conscience  in  refusing  the  oath,  and  take 
the  sure  way  in  obeying  of  your  Prince,  and  swear  it.5 
.  .  .  This  argument  seemed  me  suddenly  so  subtle,  and 
namely  with  such  authority  coming  out  of  so  noble  a 
prelate’s  mouth,  that  I  could  again  answer  nothing 
thereto,  but  only  that  I  thought  myself  I  might  not 
well  do  so.55 1 

When  Bishop  Fisher  came  before  the  commis¬ 
sioners,  he  asked  leave  to  read  and  study  the  oath  before 
giving  his  reply.  They  allowed  him  a  few  days  for 

1  Bridgett’s  More  p.  354. 


50 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


consideration ;  and  then  he  told  them  that  he  was 
ready  to  swear  to  a  part  of  it,  but  not  to  all.  They 
“  answered  that  the  King  would  by  no  means  like  of  any 
kind  of  exceptions  or  conditions  ;  ‘  And  therefore,  said 
my  Lord  of  Canterbury,  ‘  you  must  answer  directly  to 
our  question,  whether  you  will  swear  the  oath  or  no. 

‘  Then/  said  my  Lord  of  Rochester,  *  I  do  absolutely 
refuse  the  oath.’  ” 1 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  however,  was  too  desirous  for 
the  safety  of  the  illustrious  malcontents  to  allow  these 
answers  of  theirs  to  he  final.  He  wrote  to  Cromwell 
earnestly  begging  that  they  should  be  allowed  to  swear 
after  their  own  fashion.  “  I  doubt  not  but  you  do  right 
well  remember  that  my  Lord  of  Rochester  and  Master 
More  were  contented  to  be  sworn  to  the  Act  of  the 
King’s  succession,  but  not  to  the  preamble  of  the  same. 
What  was  the  cause  of  their  refusal  thereof  I  am 
uncertain,  and  they  would  by  no  means  express  the 
same.2  Nevertheless,  it  must  needs  be,  either  the 
diminution  of  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
or  else  the  reprobation  of  the  King’s  first  pretensed 
matrimony.  But  if  they  do  obstinately  persist  in  their 
opinions  of  the  preamble,  yet  meseemeth  it  should  not 
be  refused,  if  they  will  be  sworn  to  the  very  Act  of 
Succession ;  so  that  they  will  be  sworn  to  maintain  the 
same  against  all  powers  and  potentates.”  He  urged 
the  good  effect  which  their  swearing  would  produce 
upon  the  “  Princess  Dowager  and  the  Lady  Mary,” 
upon  the  Emperor  and  other  friends.  He  pleaded  that 
if  such  men  should  say  that  the  new  succession  was 

1  Van  Ortroy  p.  285. 

2  They  had  not  given  their  reasons,  lest  the  statement  of  them 
should  be  treated  as  an  act  of  high  treason. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


51 


good  and  according  to  God’s  laws,  no  one  within  the 
realm  would  once  reclaim  against  it.  Some  persons, 
he  said,  could  not  alter  from  their  opinions  of  the 
pretensed  marriage,  or  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome’s 
authority;  their  consciences  were  indurate  and  invert¬ 
ible  ;  they  had  once  said  their  minds,  and  felt  that  if 
they  now  varied  therefrom,  their  fame  and  estimation 
would  be  distained  for  ever ;  but  if  they  could  but  be 
brought  to  acknowledge  the  succession  itself,  it  should 
be  amplected  and  embraced,  and  that  this  end  would 
be  greatly  furthered  by  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  and 
More.  He  added  that  if  the  King  pleased,  “  their  said 
oaths  might  be  suppressed,”  except  when  and  where 
the  publishing  of  the  same  might  be  serviceable.1 

Cranmer’s  prudent  letter  was  laid  before  the  King ; 
but  the  King  “  in  no  wise  wdlled  but  that  they  should 
be  sworn  as  well  to  the  preamble  as  to  the  Act. 
Wherefore,”  Cromwell  said,  “his  Grace  specially 
trusteth  that  ye  will  in  no  wise  attempt  or  move  him 
to  the  contrary.” 2  The  effort  was  unavailing ;  but  it  is 
satisfactory  to  know  that  the  blood  of  the  two  most 
famous  martyrs  of  the  reign  was  in  no  way  to  be  laid 
to  the  charge  of  the  Archbishop. 

Nor  did  he  fail  to  strive  likewise  to  save  the  scarcely 
less  noble,  if  not  so  celebrated  martyrs,  the  sight  of 
whom,  as  they  went  out  to  execution,  moved  Sir 

1  It  is  questionable  what  Cranmer  meant  by  the  last  sentence. 
People  generally  suppose  that  he  meant  that  it  might  be  given  out 
that  they  had  taken  the  oath,  without  letting  it  be  known  that 
the  oath  in  their  case  was  taken  with  a  difference.  Certainly 
such  advice  would  not  be  to  Cranmer’s  honour.  But  it  is  at  least 
possible  that  Cranmer  meant  that  it  need  not  everywhere  be 
blazed  abroad  that  they  had  taken  the  oath  at  all :  the  great  thing 
was  to  get  them  quietly  through. 

2  Bridgett’s  Fisher  p.  279. 


52 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Thomas  More  to  such  envious  self-contempt.1  Cranmer 
had  at  an  earlier  time  been  on  good  terms  with  Austin 
Webster,  Prior  of  the  Charterhouse  of  Axholme ; 2  and 
when  Webster,  with  Reynold  of  Sion  and  otheis,  had 
been  attainted  of  high  treason  for  clinging  to  "the 
usurped  power  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  Cranmer  was 
surprised.  Webster  had  promised  him  never  to 
“  meddle  for  the  defence  of  that  opinion.”  It  moved 
the  Archbishop’s  pity  that  men  so  learned  in  Scriptures 
and  Doctors  should  suffer  by  their  ignorance  on  this 
point.  “If  there  be  none  other  offence  laid  against 
them  than  this  one,”  he  wrote  to  Cromwell,  “  it  will  be 
much  more  for  the  conversion  of  all  the  fautois  theieof, 
after  mine  opinion, that  their  consciences  maybe  clearly 
averted  from  the  same  by  communication  of  sincere 
doctrine,  and  so  they  to  publish  it  likewise  to  the  woild, 
than  by  the  justice  of  the  law  to  suffer  in  such 
ignorance.  And  if  it  would  please  the  Ring  s  Highness 
to  send  them  unto  me,  I  suppose  I  could  do  very 
much  with  them  in  this  behalf.”  3  It  does  not  appear 
that  the  sanguine  Archbishop  was  permitted  to  make 
his  experiment;  it  is  certain  that  the  two  men  for 
whom  he  pleaded  so  earnestly  were  horribly  put  to 

death. 

Not  long  before  the  slaughter  of  the  Carthusians  and 
their  associates,  a  step  had  been  taken  which  was  full 
of  terrible  consequence  for  the  Church  of  England.  It 
was  the  practical  delegation  of  the  King’s  newly  declared 
headship  to  a  vicar-general,  in  the  person  of  Thomas 
Cromwell. 

It  might  have  been  thought  that  the  declaiation  of 

’  iiridgett’s  More  p.  404.  2  See  Jenkyns  i.  127. 

s  Ibid.  i.  134. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


53 


the  independence  of  the  national  Church  as  against 
Rome  would  have  added  dignity  to  the  See  of  Canter¬ 
bury  ;  and  perhaps  at  first  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
King  that  this  should  be  the  case.  Early  in  1534  there 
was  a  kind  of  partition  between  the  Archbishop  and 
the  King  of  the  prerogatives  which  had  been  acquired 
in  the  course  of  ages  by  the  Pope;  and  the  power  of 
granting  licenses  and  dispensations,  such  as  had  before 
been  only  obtainable  from  Rome,  fell  to  the  Archbishop. 
He  even  conferred  the  pall  upon  the  successor  of 
Lee  in  the  northern  primacy  with  an  impressive  cere¬ 
monial  in  his  chapel  at  Lambeth.1  He  had  at  all  times 
possessed  the  rights  inherent  in  a  primatial  and 
rnetropolitical  see  ;  and  in  that  capacity  Cranmer  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  make  a  visitation  of  his  province.  At  the 
time  that  his  monition  on  the  subject  was  issued  to 
the  premier  diocese  of  London,  the  old  official  style 
had  not  been  altered.  Cranmer  was  designated  in  the 
instrument  as  Legate  of  the  Apostolic  See.  Visitations 
were  always  unpopular,  and  in  those  days  were  costly 
to  the  visited.  Bishop  Stokesley  resisted  the  visitation. 
He  and  his  Chapter  protested — the  penalties  of  a 
Praemunire  might  be  hanging  over  them — that  they 
could  not  recognise  the  Archbishop  as  Legate,  and  they 
appealed  to  the  King.  But  the  King  upheld  the  Arch¬ 
bishop,  and  the  visitation  went  forward.  Cranmer 
turned  to  the  great  diocese  of  Winchester.  Bishop 
Gardiner  withstood  him  likewise.  He  urged  with 
some  reason  that  Warham  had  visited  him  only  five 
years  before  :  and  besides — Cranmer  having  meanwhile 

1  Strype’s  Cranmer  ch.  xxix.  See  the  paper  by  [Bishop]  Stubbs 
in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  November  1860,  p.  522  ;  cp.  also 

p.  648. 


54 


THOMAS  CHANMER 


discarded  the  legatine  title— that  it  was  contrary  to 
the  royal  supremacy  for  any  subject  to  style  himself 
Primate  of  all  England. 

The  objection  called  forth  one  of  Cranmer’s  most 
characteristic  letters.  Already  whatever  love  may  once 
have  existed  between  the  old  Cambridge  acquaintances 
was  fast  vanishing.  Cranmer  wrote  to  Cromwell,  then 
still  secretary,  that  Gardiner  was  endeavouring  to 
advance  his  own  cause  under  pretence  of  the  King’s. 

“  Ye  know,”  he  said,  “the  man  lacketh  neither  learning 
in  the  law,  neither  witty  invention,  no  craft  to  set 
forth  his  matters  to  the  best.”  The  Bishop  of  Borne, 
he  urged — with  some  logical  force,  if  his  premiss  were 
allowed  to  be  exact — had  formerly  been  taken  for 
Supreme  Head,  and  yet  had  a  great  number  of  primates 
under  him,  without  derogation  to  his  authority ;  why 
should  it  not  be  so  with  the  King  ?  All  the  bishops 
in  England  would  gladly  have  conspired  with  the  Pope 
to  take  away  the  primatial  title,  so  that  they  might 
have  been  all  equal  together,  if  the  Pope  had  wished 
to  abolish  it  in  the  interest  of  his  supreme  authority. 

“  All  this  notwithstanding,”  he  pursued,  “  if  the 
Bishops  of  this  realm  pass  no  more  of1  their  names, 
styles,  and  titles,  than  I  do  of  mine,  the  King’s  High¬ 
ness  shall  soon  order  the  matter  between  us  all.  ...  I 
pray  God  never  be  merciful  unto  me  at  the  general 
judgment,  if  I  perceive  in  my  heart  that  I  set  more 
by  any  title,  name,  or  style  that  I  write  than  I  do  by 
the  paring  of  an  apple,  farther  than  it  shall  be  to  the 
setting  forth  of  God’s  word  and  will.  Yet  will  I  not 
utterly  excuse  me  herein ;  for  God  must  be  my  judge, 
who  knoweth  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  and  so  do  not  I 

1  Care  no  more  for. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  55 

myself ;  but  I  speak  for  so  mucli  as  I  do  feel  in  my  heart ; 
for  many  evil  affections  lie  lurking  there,  and  will 
not  lightly  be  espied.  But  yet  I  would  not  gladly 
leave  any  just  thing  at  the  pleasure  and  suit  of  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  he  being  none  otherwise  affection¬ 
ate  unto  me  than  he  is.  Even  at  the  beginning 
first  of  Christ’s  profession,  Diotrephes  desired  gerere 
primatum  in  ecclesict :  and  since,  he  hath  had  more 
successors  than  all  the  Apostles  had,  of  whom  have  come 
all  these  glorious  titles,  styles,  and  pomps  into  the 
Church.  But  I  would  that  I,  and  all  my  brethren  the 
Bishops,  would  leave  all  our  styles,  and  write  the  style 
of  our  offices,  calling  ourselves  Apostolos  Jesu  Christie 
so  that  we  took  not  upon  us  the  name  vainly,  but  were 
so  even  in  deed  ;  so  that  we  might  order  our  diocese  in 
such  sort  that  neither  paper,  parchment,  lead,  nor  wax, 
but  the  very  Christian  conversation  of  the  people,  might 
be  the  letters  and  seals  of  our  offices,  as  the  Corinthians 
were  unto  Paul,  to  whom  he  said,  Littcrac  nostrae  et 
signet  Apostolatus  nostri  vos  estis  .”  1 

The  extent  of  Cranmer’s  deference  to  royal  authority 
was  soon  put  to  the  test  by  Cromwell’s  new  appoint¬ 
ment.  He  became  Vicar-General  of  the  King  in  1535. 
The  instrument  which  appointed  him  was  in  truth  a 
terrible  document.  It  laid  the  entire  system  of  the 
Church  of  England  at  the  mercy  of  the  Vicegerent. 
He  was  empowered  not  only  to  visit,  in  person  or  by 
deputy,  all  ecclesiastical  bodies  and  persons,  but  also, 
amongst  other  things,  to  suspend  or  deprive,  to  summon 
synods,  to  legislate,  to  direct  the  elections  of  prelates, 
and  to  annul  them  if  he  thought  proper.  An  attempt 
was  indeed  made  to  distinguish  between  the  prerogatives 

1  Jenkyns  i.  136. 


56 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


which  were  bestowed  upon  the  bishops  by  Divine 
commission  in  the  Scriptures,  and  those  which  they 
exercised  by  grace  of  the  King,  and  in  his  stead ;  but 
never  was  the  English  Church  submitted  to  such  an 
usurpation  as  at  Cromwells  appointment.  And  to  add 
insult  to  injury,  the  preface  to  the  fulsome  document 
stated  (in  language  which  was  perhaps  aimed  chiefly  at 
the  Pope,  but  at  any  rate  seemed  to  strike  the  higher 
elergy  of  the  realm),  that  the  appointment  of  a  Vicar- 
General  of  the  King  was  made  necessary  by  the  self- 
seeking,  the  indolence,  the  licentious  bad  example  of 
those  who  claimed  to  govern  the  Church,  by  which  the 
Bride  of  Christ  had  been  so  disfigured  that  her  Spouse 
could  barely  recognise  her.1 

In  June  of  the  year  following  that  which  saw  the 
appointment  made,  Convocation  was  summoned.  At 
its  first  session  for  purposes  of  deliberation,  Dr.  William 
Petre  appeared  in  the  BTpper  House,  and  claimed  to 
preside  over  it  as  the  representative  of  the  Vicegerent. 
Many,  at  the  time,  no  doubt,  must  have  felt  surprise  and 
indignation,  as  historians  of  a  later  date  have  felt  it ; 
but  there  is  no  record  of  any  protest  having  been  made. 
The  Popes  had  accustomed  men  to  seeing  lawful 
authorities  overridden ;  and  if  Cranmer’s  theory  of  the 
transference  of  the  Supreme  Headship  from  the  Pope 
to  the  King  was  true,  it  was  as  innocent  for  the  King’s 
deputy  to  take  precedence  of  Cranmer  in  the  Con¬ 
vocation  of  Canterbury  as  it  had  been  for  Wblsey  to 
take  piecedence  of  Warham.  Stokesley  and  Gardiner 
were  as  much  committed  to  the  principle  involved  as 
Cranmer  himself  was.  In  the  extreme  form,  however, 
the  insult  was  not  repeated.  Cromwell  presided  in 

1  The  document  is  given  in  Collier  ix.  p.  119. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


57 


person  at  the  next  session.  This  was  bad  enough  ;  but 
it  was  not  quite  so  offensive  as  to  send  his  proctor  to 
preside  in  the  venerable  assembly. 

But  the  main  purpose  of  Cromwell’s  appointment 
was  not  to  take  down  the  pride  of  prelates  and  con¬ 
vocations.  It  was  to  bring  money  into  the  King’s 
exchequer.  His  first  act  was  to  inhibit,  through 
Cranmer,  all  archbishops  and  bishops  from  visiting 
their  dioceses  and  provinces,  and  in  fact  to  suspend  all 
ordinary  jurisdictions  whatever,  until  a  visitation  by 
the  Supreme  Head  should  have  been  carried  through. 
Most  of  the  monasteries  had  always  been  exempted 
from  episcopal  jurisdiction,  and  when  the  Papal  author¬ 
ity  was  swept  away  and  divided  between  the  Crown  and 
the  Primate,  it  had  been  expressly  enacted  that  neither 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  nor  any  one  else  should 
have  power  to  visit  them.  The  purpose  of  this  enact¬ 
ment  was  clear.  A  royal  visitation  of  the  monasteries 
was  the  prelude  to  their  suppression ;  and  the  King  and 
Cromwell  did  not  wish  any  ecclesiastic  to  be  able  to 
interpose  a  shield  between  the  monasteries  and  the 
spoiler. 

A  Life  of  Cranmer  is  not  required  to  narrate  the 
shameful  and  wasteful  process  by  which  the  religious 
houses  of  England  were  broken  up  and  their  property 
squandered.  It  was  not  Cranmer’s  doing,  and  he  had 
no  power  to  check  it.  Sympathy  with  the  monastic 
system  he  probably  had  none.  On  occasion  he  spoke  of 
monks  and  friars  with  all  the  scorn  which  was  common 
among  seculars.  He  thought  that  many  of  the  Ob¬ 
servants  were  “  wolves  in  sheep’s  skins.” 1  He  trusted 
that  their  “  irreligious  religion  ”  might  be  “  extincted  ” 

1  Jenkyns  i.  181. 


58  THOMAS  CRANMER 

at  Canterbury  as  well  as  elsewhere.1  But  he  approved 
of  the  original  intention  of  such  foundations.2  Quite  a 
number  of  his  earlier  letters  are  addressed  to  “  Brother 
Abbots  ”  and  “  Sister  Prioresses/’  and  show  him  to 
be  on  pleasant  terms  with  them.  In  the  house  of  the 
Black  Friars  at  Cambridge  he  knows  "  men  of  good  study, 
living,  learning,  and  judgment;  and  pity  it  weie,  he 
thinks,  “  but  that  they  should  have  such  a  head  and 
ruler  as  is  of  like  qualities.”  3  He  recommends  two 
Benedictines  as  candidates  for  the  vacant  Priory  of 
Worcester,  and  says,  “  I  know  no  religious,  men  m 
England  of  that  habit  that  be  of  bettei  learning,  judg 
ment,  conversation,  and  all  qualities  meet  for  an  head 
and  master  of  an  house.”  4  Cranmer  would  probably 
never  have  stirred  for  a  dissolution  of  the  monasteries. 
When  others  did  so,  he  made  no  personal  gam  by  it. 
Though  he  occasionally  begs  Cromwell  for  small  grants 
of  monastic  property  for  friends  and  dependents,  he 
asks  nothing  for  himself.  The  few  pieces  of  monastic 
property  which  he  acquired  were  by  way  of  exchange, 
and  at  ruinous  cost.5  However  pleased  he  may  have 
been  for  some  reasons  to  see  the  dissolution,  the  way  in 
which  the  plunder  was  employed  was  a  deep  disappoint¬ 
ment  to  him,  as  it  was  also  to  Latimer.  “  I  was  ever 
hitherto  cold,”  he  writes  to  the  Vicegerent,  “  but  now  I 
am  in  a  heat  with  the  cause  of  religion 5  that  is,  of 
monasticism— 1 “  which  goeth  all  contrary  to  mine  expect- 


1  Jenkyns  i.  174. 

2  “The  beginning  of  prebendaries  was  no  less  purposed  lor  the 
maintenance  °of  good  learning  and  good  conversation  of  living, 
than  religious  men  were.”  To  Cromwell :  Jenkyns  l.  292. 

3  Jenkyns  i.  120.  4  Ibid.  i.  144. 

e  See  Dixon  i.  333,  396  ;  ii.  151.  But  compare  Narratives  of 

Reformation  p.  263. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


59 


ation,  if  it  be  as  the  fame  goeth ;  wherein  I  would 
wonder  fain  break  my  mind  unto  you,  and,  if  you  please, 
I  will  come  to  such  place  as  you  shall  appoint  for  the  pur¬ 
pose/’1  But  Cromwell  had  no  desire  for  his  counsel,  and 
the  Archbishop  was  probably  obliged  to  keep  it  to  himself. 

There  was  one  monastery  with  which  it  is  especially 
interesting  to  trace  Cranmer’s  relations.  Though  a 
secular  and  a  married  man,  he  was  himself,  by  virtue  of 
his  archbishopric,  the  head  of  the  great  convent  of 
Christ  Church  at  Canterbury.  It  and  its  Prior  were  to 
him  “the  Prior  and  Convent  of  my  Church.”  2  Its 
monks  were  to  him,  in  a  peculiar  sense  “  my  brethren.” 
He  writes  to  the  Prior  about  “  your  brothern  and  mine.” 
When  he  first  came  to  the  see  the  convent  bore  the 
expense  of  his  enthronement  banquet.3  Pie  was  in 
great  difficulties  about  money  at  the  time ;  and  he 
“  showed  his  necessity  ”  to  the  convent,  “  thinking  of 
good  congruence  he  might  be  more  bolder  of  them,  and 
they  likewise  of  him,  than  to  attempt  or  prove  any 
foreign  friends.”  He  promised  that  he  would  so 
recompense  them  as  they  should  be  well  contented  and 
pdeased  withal.4  How  warmly,  in  fulfilment  of  this 
promise,  he  espoused  their  cause  at  the  time  of  their 
troubles  over  the  Nun,  has  already  been  told.  It  was 
then  their  turn  to  plead  poverty.  They  could  not  offer 
the  King  as  much  as  they  would  have  wished.  “  Besides 
the  ornaments  of  the  Church,  and  some  plate  that  the 
Prior  and  certain  officers  hath,  this  monastery  is  not 
aforehand,”  he  tells  the  King,  “  but  in  debt  divers  ways.” 
He  prays  his  Highness  to  send  them  “  some  comfortable 
word  or  letter  for  their  comfortation  in  this  their  great 

1  Jenkyns  i.  162. 

3  Hook  i.  p.  460. 


2  Ibid.  i.  76. 

4  Jenkyns  i.  57. 


60  THOMAS  CRAHMER 

pensiveness  and  dolour.”  1  When  the  visitation  of  the 
monasteries  began,  a  great  show  was  made  of  xestoring 
the  strict  discipline  of  former  days.  Amongst  other 
things,  the  monks  were  forbidden,  on  any  pretext  what¬ 
ever,  to  go  beyond  the  precincts.  Hereupon  the 
Archbishop  wrote  to  Cromwell  to  intercede  for  a  relax¬ 
ation  of  the  rules  on  behalf  of  one  of  the  great  officeis 
of  the  House,  the  Cellarer,  whose  health  would  suffer  by 
the  confinement.  The  Archbishop  was  anxious  foi  the 
consequences  not  only  for  the  Cellarer  himself,  but  foi 
the  House.  “  The  said  monastery  should  lack  many 
commodities,  which  daily  do  grow  and  increase  by  his 
policy  and  wisdom  by  his  provision  abroad  ;  for  he  is  the 
only  jewel  and  housewife  of  that  house.  ^  Cranmer 
was  appealed  to  for  an  explanation  of  the  new  legu- 
lations  that  had  been  laid  down  for  the  dismissal  of  the 
younger  monks,  but  prudently  referred  the  questions  to 
headquarters.3 

In  spite  of  his  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  the 
House,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Archbishop  was  looked 
upon  with  favour  by  more  than  a  small  section  of  the 
brethren.  They  may  perhaps  have  been  English-minded 
enough  to  bear  it  with  equanimity,  when  Cranmei, 
thinking  Canterbury  to  be  more  backward  than  any 
other  place  in  his  diocese,  preached  in  his  cathedial 
two  sermons  (which  he  confesses  to  have  been  “  long 
ones)  to  prove  that  the  Pope’s  authority  was  but  an 
usurpation,  and  that  the  King  was,  by  God  s  law,  the 
Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of  England.  We  lieai 
of  no  refusals  to  swear  to  the  Supreme  Headship  at 
Canterbury.  But  there  was  a  cause  of  disagreement 

1  Jenkyns  i.  77.  2  Ibid.  i.  148. 

3  Ibid .  i.  155. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


61 


which  touched  nearer  home.  The  glory  of  the  great 
convent  was  all  bound  up  with  the  shrine  of  St. 
Thomas.  It  must  have  struck  horror  into  the  heart  of 
every  monk  of  Christ  Church  when  he  heard  that  St. 
Thomas’  successor  and  namesake  had  written  to  the 
Vicegerent  on  August  18,  1538,  to  say  that  he  greatly 
suspected  the  martyr’s  blood  in  the  cathedral  to  be 
“  but  a  feigned  thing,  made  of  some  red  ochre  or  of  such 
like  matter,”  and  had  begged  that  his  chaplains  might 
be  commissioned  “  to  try  and  examine  that  and  all  other 
like  things  there.”  1  Already,  in  the  year  before, 
Cranmer  had  done  a  deed  which  awoke  consternation 
even  in  the  rival  convent  of  St.  Austin’s,  where  the 
name  of  St.  Thomas  was  less  cherished.  Convocation, 
acting  in  obedience  to  royal  stimulus,  had  abrogated  all 
but  certain  specified  festivals  during  harvest  time  and 
term  time.  Cranmer,  who  found  the  people  of  his 
diocese  obstinately  observing  these  abrogated  days,  and 
who  expostulated  with  Cromwell  for  allowing  them  to 
be  still  observed  at  Court,2  was  minded  himself  to  set  a 
striking  example  of  compliance.  Among  the  festivals 
which  had  not  been  retained  was  that  of  the  Translation 
of  St.  Thomas,  on  July  7th.  The  day  before  had  long 
been  observed,  like  the  eves  of  other  great  holidays,  as 
a  solemn  fast.  But  in  that  “same  year,”  writes  the 
astonished  chronicler  of  St.  Augustine’s,  “  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury  did  not  fast  on  St.  Thomas’  Even, 
but  did  eat  flesh,  and  did  sup  in  his  parlour  with  his 
family,  which  was  never  seen  before  in  all  the  country.”  3 
Alter  this  it  was  to  little  purpose  that  Cranmer  devoted 
half  the  following  Lent  to  “  reading  the  Epistle  of  St. 

1  Jenkyns  i.  262. 

3  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  285. 


2  Ibid.  i.  201. 


62 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Paul  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  Chapter  House”  of  the 
cathedral  monastery.1  He  must  have  been  heard  by 
an  unwilling  and  offended  audience. 

The  Prior  of  the  convent  throughout  all  those 
anxious  days  was  Thomas  Gold  well.2  He  was,  at 
the  beginning  of  Cranmers  reign,  “a  man  of  gieat 
simplicity,  and  void  of  malice,  as  far  as  the  Aiclibishop 
could  judge.3  But  in  course  of  time  a  mutual  suspicion 
arose  between  the  two  men.  Cranmer  complained  that 
the  Prior,  contrary  to  promise,  had  behaved  badly  to 
his  physician;4  that  he  did  not  regard  the  King’s 
injunctions,  professing  to  have  dispensation  to  display 
the  relics,  on  St.  Blaise  s  day,  after  the  King  had 
forbidden  such  exhibitions;5  that  he  had  readmitted  to 
the  convent  a  monk  who  had  run  away  in  suspicious 
circumstances,  and  who  was  supposed  to  have  spent  nis 
time  at  Borne.6  A  short  while  before  the  dissolution 
Cranmer  heard  a  rumour  that  Cromwell  intended  to 
depose  Goldwell  and  put  another  P1101  m  his  place.  It 
caused  him  little  regret.  He  begged  that,  if  the  report 
were  true,  Goldwell’s  office  might  be  conferred  on  Hi. 
Bichard  Thornden,  the  Warden  of  the  Manors  of  the 
house.  He  described  him  as  “  a  man  of  right  honest 

1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  286.  , 

2  Hook  (Cranmer  ii.  10)  is  in  error  when  he  identifies  Cranmer  s 
Prior  with  the  great  builder  of  Christ  Church  gate  and  of  the 
central  Tower,  the  conductor  of  Colet  and  Erasmus.  This  was 
his  predecessor,  Thomas  Goldstone.  Thomas  Goldwell,  however, 
was  in  his  way  a  builder  too.  He  built  a  pier  at  Dover  “  to  Ins 
great  charge  and  cost.”  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  283. 

3  Jenkyns  ii.  77.  4  Ibid.  i.  223.  5  Ibid.  i.  182. 

6  Ibid.  i.  254.  Mr.  Dixon  i.  330  asserts  that  the  Prior  ol 
the  Black  Friars  who  preached  against  Cranmer  at  Canterbury 
did  so  at  Prior  Goldwell’s  instigation,  and  in  the  cathedral  pulpit. 

I  cannot  find  any  authority  for  these  two  statements.  Certainly 

Cranmer  himself  does  not  suggest  it  (Jenkyns  i.  1  iO). 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


63 


behaviour,  clean  living,  good  learning,  good  judgment, 
without  superstition,  very  tractable,  and  as  ready  to  set 
forward  his  Prince’s  causes,  as  no  man  more  of  his  coat/’ 
His  commendation  of  Thorn  den  ends  with  what  appears 
to  be  an  innuendo  against  the  aged  Goldwell — “  I  am 
moved  to  write  to  your  Lordship  in  this  behalf,  inasmuch 
as  I  consider  what  a  great  commodity  I  shall  have,  if 
such  one  be  promoted  to  the  said  office  that  is  a  right 
honest  man  and  of  his  qualities ;  and  I  insure  your 
Lordship  the  said  room  requireth  such  one  ;  as  knoweth 
God.”  1  It  was  not  the  first  time  that  Cranmer  had 
written  in  support  of  Thornden ; 2  and  Prior  Goldwell 
had  some  reason  to  be  jealous  of  the  Warden’s  influence. 
When  the  time  came  for  the  conversion  of  the  Prior 
and  Convent  into  Dean  and  Chapter,  the  old  man 
piteously  entreated  Cromwell  to  make  him  Dean.  He 
heard  that  the  commissioners  who  were  to  effect  the 
change  were  about  to  visit  the  cathedral,  “  of  the  which 
commission  my  Lord  of  Canterbury,  as  I  hear,  shall  be 
the  chief,  who  is  not  so  good  lord  unto  me  as  I  would 
he  were.  Wherefore,  without  your  especial  lordship,  I 
suppose  my  Lord  of  Canterbury  will  put  me  to  as  much 
hindrance  as  he  can ;  and  also  I  have  heard  of  late  that 
my  brother,  the  Warden  of  the  Manors,  Dr.  Thornden, 
is  called  in  my  Lord  of  Canterbury’s  house,  ‘  Dean  of 
Christ  Church  in  Canterbury.’  This  office  of  Dean  by 
the  favour  of  your  good  Lordship  I  trusted  to  have  had, 
and  as  yet  trust  to  have.  I  have  been  Prior  of  the  said 
church  above  22  years,  wherefore  it  would  be  much 
displeasure  to  me  in  my  age  to  be  put  from  my  chamber 
and  lodging.” 3  The  Prior  did  not  obtain  his  desire. 

1  Jenkyns  i.  239.  2  Ibid.  i.  148. 

3  Gasquet  English  Monasteries  ii.  474. 


64 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


He  was  offered  one  of  the  prebends  of  the  new  found¬ 
ation,  which  he  refused,  and  retired  upon  a  pension  of 
£80  a  year — equivalent  to  nearly  £1000  now.  But  he 
succeeded  in  putting  a  spoke  in  Thornden’s  wheel. 
Thornden  became  a  prebendary,  and,  after  a  while, 
Bishop  Suffragan  of  Dover ;  but  the  deanery  was  given 
to  another,  and  Cranmer  had  reason  to  think  very 
differently  afterwards  of  the  man  whose  advancement 
he  had  pressed.1 

The  Archbishop  was  not  entirely  satisfied  with  what 
Goldwell  calls  the  “  change  of  religion”  which  took 
place  in  his  cathedral.  There  was  a  magnificence 
about  the  new  scheme  which  might  well  make  the  royal 
founder  feel  satisfied  with  himself.  He  thought  that 
the  perusal  of  it  would  convince  the  King  of  Scotland 
of  the  godliness  of  his  proceedings.2  A  hundred  and 
sixty-eight  persons  constituted  the  new  body,  headed 
by  a  Provost,  twelve  prebendaries,  and  six  preachers. 
When  the  scheme  was  sent  to  Cranmer  for  his  opinion, 
he  evinced  no  great  admiration  for  the  scale  of  payments 
on  which  the  new  establishment  was  framed.  “  Surely, 
my  Lord,”  he  wrote  to  Cromwell,  “  I  think  that  it  will 
be  a  very  substantial  and  godly  foundation.  Nevei- 
theless,  in  my  opinion,  the  Prebendaries,  which  be 
allowed  £40  a  piece  yearly,  might  be  altered  to  a  more 
expedient  use.  Having  experience  both  in  times  past, 
and  also  in  our  days,  how  the  said  sect  of  prebendaries 
have  not  only  spent  their  time  in  much  idleoess,  and 
their  substance  in  superfluous  belly  cheer,  I  think  it  not 

1  Gasquet  is  wrong  in  saying  that  Thornden  "became  Dean. 
Nicholas  Wotton  was  the  first  Dean  of  Canterbury  under  Henry 
yjjj  p)r  Crome,  however,  not  Dr.  Thornden,  was  Cranmer’s 

final  candidate  (Jenkyns  i.  294). 

2  Jenkvns  i.  291. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  65 

to  be  a  convenient  state  or  degree  to  be  maintained  and 
established.”  A  prebendary,  he  said,  was  commonly 
“  neither  a  learner,  nor  teacher,  but  a  good  viander.” 
They  were  always  intriguing  to  get  their  own  way  in 
the  college.  When  learned  men  were  admitted  to  such 
rooms,  they  were  apt  to  desist  from  their  good  and  godly 
studies,  and  all  other  Christian  exercise  of  preaching 
and  teaching.  Wherefore  he  wished  that  not  only  the 
name  of  a  prebendary  were  exiled  the  King’s  found¬ 
ations,  but  also  the  superfluous  conditions  of  such 
persons.  “  To  say  the  truth,”  he  continued,  in  a  style 
which  soon  after  became  very  cheap,  “it  is  an  estate 
which  St.  Paul,  reckoning  up  the  degrees  and  estates 
allowed  in  his  time,  could  not  find  in  the  Church  of 
Christ.”  He  thought,  instead  of  the  twelve  wealthy 
prebendaries,  it  would  be  better  to  have  “twenty 
divines  at  £10  a  piece,  like  as  it  is  appointed  to  be  at 
Oxford  and  Cambridge ;  and  forty  students  in  the 
tongues  and  sciences  and  French,  to  have  ten  marks 
apiece.  In  this  way  the  readers,  or  professors,  con¬ 
templated  in  the  scheme,  would  have  better  audiences  ; 
for  assuredly  the  twelve  prebendaries  would  be  too  busy 
“making  of  good  cheer”  to  attend  their  lectures. 

A  prebendary  of  Canterbury,  who  reveres  at  a 
distance  of  three  centuries  and  a  half  the  name  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  may  regret  that  he  had  so  bad  an 
opinion  of  his  “  sect,”  and  may  hope  that  it  would  have 
been  altered  if  he  could  have  foreseen  the  subsequent 
history  of  the  cathedral  body.  But  it  is  a  pleasure 
to  observe  that  Cranmer’s  design  was  to  increase, 
and  not  diminish,  the  number  of  priests  attached 
to  his  cathedral;  and  that  if  the  scheme,  with  his 
alterations,  had  taken  effect,  Canterbury  would  have 

p 


66  THOMAS  CRANMER 

become  a  very  great  educational  centre,  if  not  a  very 
rich  one. 

Another  part  of  the  educational  scheme  m  connexion 
with  the  cathedral  drew  out  the  zeal  of  Archbishop 
Cranmer  in  a  manner  which  no  generous  heart  can  fail 
to  admire.  The  story  is  told  by  his  secretary  Morice, 
who  was  evidently  present  at  the  scene  which  he 
describes.  When  the  commissioners  were,  engaged  m 
electing  the  sixty  scholars  of  the  new  King’s  School, 
“more  than  one  or  two”  would  have  “none  admitted 
but  younger  brethren  and  gentlemen  s  sons :  as  foi 
other,  husbandmen’s  children,  they  were  more  meet, 
they  said,  for  the  plough  and  to  be  artificers  than  to 

occupy  the  place  of  the  learned  sort. 

It  was  indeed  the  characteristic  of  the  age  of  Henry 
to  plunder  the  patrimony  of  the  poor  for  the  sake  of 
enriching  the  rich.  But  Cranmer  did  not  share  the 
fashionable  views  of  his  day.  "Poor  men’s  children,”  he 
said,  “  are  many  times  endued  with  more  singular  gifts 
of  nature,  which  are  also  the  gifts  of  God— -as  with 
eloquence,  memory,  apt  pronuntiation,  sobriety,  with 
such  like— and  also  commonly  more  given  to  apply  their 
study,  than  is  the  gentleman’s  son,  delicately  educated. 
To  the  plea  that  ploughmen  were  as  much  needed  in 
the  commonwealth  as  any  other  set  of  men,  and  that 
therefore  it  was  best  to  keep  the  ploughman’s  son  to 
the  plough,  the  Archbishop  replied  “that  utterly  to 
exclude  the  poor  man’s  sons  from  the  benefit  of  learning, 
as  though  they  were  unworthy  to  have  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  bestowed  upon  them  as  well  as  upon  others,” 
was  “  as  much  as  to  say  that  Almighty  God  should  not 
be  at  liberty  to  bestow  His  great  gifts  of  grace  but  as 
we  shall  appoint  them,  to  be  employed  according  to  our 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  67 

fancy.”  God,  he  said,  “giveth  His  gifts,  both  of  learn¬ 
ing  an  other  perfections  in  all  sciences,  unto  all  kind 
and  states  of  people  indifferently:  even  so  doth  He 
many  tunes  withdraw  from  them  and  their  posterity 
again  those  beneficial  gifts,  if  they  be  not  thankful.” 
He  said  that  it  was  as  vain  as  the  Babel-builders’ 
work  to  attempt  ‘Ho  shut  up  into  a  straight  corner 
the  bountiful  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  God  would 
provide  that  the  offspring  of  the  best  born  children 
should  become  “most  unapt  to  learn,  and  very  dolts”  • 
he  himself  had  seen  no  small  number  of  them  “  very 
dull  and  without  all  manner  of  capacity.  I  take  it  ” 
lie  pursued,  “  that  none  of  us  all  here,  being  gentlemen 
born  (as  I  think),  but  had  our  beginning  that  way  from 
a  low  and  base  parentage— and  through  the  benefit  of 
learning  and  other  civil  knowledge  all  gentlefolk] 
ascend  to  their  estate.”  Feats  of  arms,  they  replied, 
and  martial  acts,  had  been  the  chief  means  of  such 
advancement :  to  which  the  Archbishop  retorted— “  As 
though  the  noble  captain  was  always  unfurnished  of 
good  learning  and  knowledge  to  persuade  and  dissuade 
is  army  !  To  conclude,  if  the  gentleman’s  son  be  apt 
to  learning,  let  him  be  admitted ;  if  not  apt,  let  the 
poor  man’s  child  apt  enter  his  room.”  1 

To  have  been  put  into  a  secondary  place  in  the 
Church  of  England  by  a  lay  Vicegerent,  woke  no 
resentment  in  the  placid  and  unselfasserting  mind  of 
Cranmer.  A  curious  friendship  sprang  up  between 
im  anc*  Thomas  Cromwell — a  friendship  which  may 
be  compared  to  the  friendship  between  Matthew  Parker 
and  Burleigh,  or,  more  distantly,  to  that  between  Laud 
and  Strafford.  It  was  the  friendship  of  two  men 
1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  273. 


68 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


thrown  together  by  common  official  work,  and,  in  the 
main,  animated  in  the  performance  of  it  by  the  same 
ideas.  It  is  a  pity  that  we  have  not,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  two  later  Primates,  both  sides  of  the  correspondence 
preserved.  While  Cromwell  kept  every  trifling  note 
which  he  received  from  the  Archbishop,  Cranmer  either 
did  not  keep  the  letters  of  Cromwell,  or  they  are  lost. 
Enough  remains,  however,  to  show  the  contrast  between 
the  characters  of  the  two  men — the  layman  reserved, 
yet  passionate,  seldom  asking  or  accepting  advice, 
self-reliant;  the  priest  sanguine,  open-hearted  and 
communicative,  afraid  of  giving  offence  or  pain,  always 
assuming  that  his  correspondent’s  sympathies  are  on 
his  side,  and  apparently  without  a  will  of  his  own, 
except  where  principle  is  concerned.  Where  principle 
is  concerned  Cranmer  speaks  out.  There  is  a  fine  note 
of  firmness  in  his  first  letter  of  any  importance  to 
Cromwell,  written  a  few  weeks  after  his  consecration. 
Cromwell  had  asked  him  to  promise  to  appoint  a 

nominee  of  his  to  a  priory. 

“  Master  Cromwell,”  he  answers,  “I  am  entirely 
resolved  to  prefer  to  the  same  office,  and  all  such  other 
when  the  same  shall  be  void,  some  such  one  person  as 
was  professed  in  the  same  house,  ct  sic  de  eodevi  go  eouio, 
if  any  such  shall  be  found  apt  and  meet.  If  there  be 
none  so  apt  and  meet  in  the  said  house,  then  I  will  be 
glad  to  provide  the  most  meetest  that  can  be  found  in 
any  other  place,  of  the  same  rule,  habit,  and  religion. 
Of  whose  sufficiency  and  ability  I  ought,  if  I  do  my 
office  and  duty,  to  have  good  experience  and  knowledge 
myself,  afore  that  I  will  admit  or  prefer  him :  and  for 
as  much  as  I  do  not  know  the  person  whom  ye  would 
prefer  to  this  office,  I  pray  you  that  I  may  be  asceitained 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


69 


of  his  name,  and  of  the  place  where  he  doth  demore. 
That  done,  I  will  hereafter  make  you  such  further 
answer  as  I  trust  ye  shall  be  pleased  withal.”  The  fact 
that  Cromwell’s  letter  was  brought  by  his  candidate  in 
person  made  Cranmer  wish  “  to  take  longer  respite  in 
this  behalf.  Ye  do  know,”  he  continues,  “  what  am¬ 
bition  and  desire  of  promotion  is  in  men  of  the  Church, 
and  what  indirect  means  they  do  use  to  obtain  their 
purpose ;  and  I  remit  to  your  wisdom  and  judgment 
what  an  unreasonable  thing  it  is  for  a  man  to  labour 
for  his  own  promotion  spiritual.”  1 

Cromwell  sues  to  him  for  a  dispensation  on  behalf  of 
a  man  who  wishes  to  marry  the  niece  of  his  deceased 
wife — a  degree  which  was  not  prohibited  by  the  latest 
statute  on  the  subject. 

“  Surely,  my  Lord,”  is  the  reply,  “  I  would  gladly 
accomplish  your  request  herein,  if  the  word  of  God 
would  permit  the  same.  By  the  law  of  God  many 
persons  be  prohibited  which  be  not  expressed,  but  be 
understand  by  like  prohibition  in  equal  degree.  Where 
it  is  there  expressed  that  the  nephew  shall  not  marry 
his  uncle’s  wife,  it  must  needs  be  understand  that  the 
niece  shall  not  be  married  unto  the  aunt’s  husband, 
because  that  all  is  one  equality  of  degree.  I  trust  this 
one  reason  shall  satisfy  all  that  be  learned  and  of 
judgment.  And  as  touching  the  Act  of  Parliament 
concerning  the  degrees  prohibited  by  God’s  law,  they 
be  not  so  plainly  set  forth  as  I  would  they  were. 
Wherein  I  somewhat  spake  my  mind  at  the  making  of 
the  said  law,  but  it  was  not  then  accepted.  I  required 
them,  that  there  must  be  expressed  mother,  and  mother- 
in-law,  daughter  and  daughter-in-law;  and  so  in  further 

1  Jenkyns  i.  20, 


70 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


degrees  directly  upward  and  downward,  in  lined  recta; 
also  sister  and  sister-in-law,  aunt  and  aunt-in-law,  niece 
and  niece-in-law.  And  this  limitation,  in  my  judg¬ 
ment,  would  have  contained  all  degrees  prohibited  by 
God’s  law,  expressed  and  not  expressed,  and  should 
have  satisfied  this  man,  and  such  other  which  would 
marry  their  nieces-in-law.”  1 

Occasionally  there  is  a  little  tiff  between  the  friends. 
Cromwell  thinks  that  Cranmer  is  not  as  quick  as  he 
might  be  over  the  divorce,  and  the  Archbishop  eagerly 
vindicates  himself.2  Another  day,  Cromwell  is  evidently 
in  a  very  bad  humour  with  him.  He  has  charged  him 
and  his  brother,  the  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury,  with  de¬ 
taining  property  belonging  to  the  King,  and  has  written 
“  very  friendly  ”  that  he  “would  be  sorry  it  should  come 
to  the  King’s  knowledge.”  At  the  same  time  he  had 
got  Latimer  to  write  to  the  Archbishop  in  his  name 
to  say  that  he  “looked  upon  the  King’s  business  (of 
the  Supremacy)  through  his  fingers.”  “  I  marvel  not,” 
the  Archbishop  replies,  “  that  you  do  so  think,  which 
knoweth  not  what  I  have  done.”  3  “  I  do  not  a  little 

marvel,”  he  says  another  time,  “  that  you  will  think  in 
me  such  lightness,  to  complain  of  one  by  whom  I  know 
no  fault.”  4  But  it  is  not  often  that  Cranmer  writes  with 
even  so  much  of  asperity.  He  knows  the  formidable 
countenance  of  the  man  with  whom  he  is  dealing.  “  If 
they  once  look  you  in  the  face,”  he  writes,  as  he  sends 
him  a  prisoner  or  two,  “  they  shall  have  no  power  to 
conceal  anything  from  you.”  5  If  he  has  a  complaint  to 
make,  he  makes  it  very  gently.  “  Much  business  maketh 

1  Jenkyns  i.  173.  Cranmer’s  rule  was  drawn  out  by  Arch¬ 
bishop  Parker,  and  became  the  law  of  the  land  under  Elizabeth. 

2  Jenkyns  i.  25.  3  Ibid.  i.  152.  4  Ibid.  i.  146. 

s  Ibid.  i.  117. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY 


71 


you  to  forget  many  things ;  and  yet  I  wonder  that  you 
remember  so  many  things  as  you  do.”1  Sometimes 
there  is  a  playful  touch  in  the  letters — occasionally  a 
grim  one.  “ I  delivered  unto  you  about  Easter  last 
passed  a  certain  billet  containing  such  matter  as  Friar 
Oliver  preached  in  the  last  Lent  ” — in  defence  of  the 
Pope — “  which  bill  if  ye  had  remembered,  I  doubt  not 
but  that  ye  would  have  provided  for  the  same  Friar 
afore  this  time;  albeit  there  is  no  time  yet  lost,  but 
that  the  same  may  be  renewed  again.”  2  “  If  you  could 
make  Mr.  Hutton  an  Abbot  or  Prior,”  he  writes,  in  the 
year  before  the  Six  Articles,  “  and  his  wife  an  Abbess 
or  a  Prioress,  he  were  most  bound  unto  you.  If  you 
would  help  him  to  such  a  perfection,  I  dare  undertake 
for  him  that  he  shall  keep  a  better  religion  than  was 
kept  there  before,  though  you  appoint  him  unto  the 
best  house  of  religion  in  England.”  3 

It  is  curious  how  implicitly  Cranmer  believed  that 
Cromwell — as  he  had  believed  that  Ann  Boleyn — was 
heart  and  soul  labouring  for  the  promotion  of  Cranmer’s 
own  Gospel.  Again  and  again  he  claims  his  sympa¬ 
thetic  interest  in  the  cause.  Now  it  is  the  spiritual 
darkness  of  Calais  (then  in  the  diocese  of  Canterbury) 
which  distresses  him:  he  pleads  for  the  planting  of 
“two  learned  persons”  there  who  “shall  shortly  (no 
doubt)  extirpate  all  manner  of  hypocrisy,  false  faith, 
and  blindness  of  God  and  His  word,  wherein  now  the 
inhabitants  there  be  altogether  wrapt.” 4  Now  he  begs 
that  a  living  may  be  found  for  “  Mr.  Hambleton,  put 
from  his  lands  and  possession  in  Scotland  for  that  he 
favoureth  the  truth  of  God’s  word,”  “until  it  please 

1  Jenkyns  i.  162.  2  Jbid.  i.  120 

3  Ibid.  i.  256.  *  jbid.  i.  145. 


72 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


God  to  send  the  true  light  of  His  gospel  into  his 
country.’’ 1  Now  he  complains  that  the  Bishop  ot 
Norwich  “doth  approve  none  to  preach  m  his  diocese 
that  he  of  right  judgment,”  and  asks  that  certain  grave 
men  may  have  the  King’s  license  to  preach  there  m 
spite  of  him,  which  would  be  “  a  deed  very  acceptable  to 
God ;  for  it  were  great  pity  that  the  diocese  of  Norwich 
should  not  be  continued  in  the  right  knowledge  of  God 
which  is  begun  amongst  them.” 2  Another  time  he 
sends  him  the  names  of  certain  men  of  Smarden  and 
Plucklev  in  Kent,  “  indicted  for  unlawful  assemblies 
l  the  last  session  at  Canterbury,  because  they  are 
accounted  fautors  of  the  new  doctrine,  as  they  call  it, 
and  asks  protection  for  them.3  Another  time  he  urges 
a  promotion  for  the  father  of  the  great  Francis  Bacon, 
on  the  ground  that  he  is  “  of  good  judgment  touching 
Christ’s  religion.”4  It  suited  Cromwell  to  allow  the 
Archbishop  to  believe  in  him;  and  indeed,  like 
Northumberland  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  while  m 
heart  attached  to  the  unreformed  religion,  if  to  any  at 
all,  he  followed  pretty  steadily  in  action  the  policy  of 

advancing  the  Reformation. 

But  as  soon  as  the  King’s  turn  was  served,  the  power 
of  the  Church  broken,  and  the  spoils  of  the  monasteries 
fathered,  Cromwell’s  knell  rang.  It  was  to  no  purpose 
that  he  acquiesced,  or  more  than  acquiesced,  in  the 
reaction  of  the  Six  Articles.  There  were  stormy  scenes 
between  him  and  Henry.  Sometimes  the  ferocious 
Kin<r  would  “bob  him  about  the  head  5  in  his  anger. 
The  miserable  affair 'of  Anne  of  Cleves  brought  matters 
to  a  point.  Suddenly  he  fell;  and  the  only  voice  in 


1  Jenkyns  i.  166,  184. 
^  Ibid.  i.  273. 


2  Ibid.  i.  186.  3  Ibid.  i.  243. 

5  See  Dixon  ii.  240,  241, 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  73 

✓ 

England  that  made  itself  heard  on  his  behalf  was  that 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  He,  who  had  written 
to  the  enraged  Sovereign  on  behalf  of  Ann  Boleyn, 
now  wrote  to  him  an  eloquent  panegyric  upon  the 
doomed  Cromwell. 

“  I  heard  yesterday  in  your  Grace’s  Council  that  he 
is  a  traitor.  Yet  who  cannot  be  sorrowful  and  amazed 
that  he  should  be  a  traitor  against  your  Majesty — he 
that  was  so  advanced  by  your  Majesty;  he  whose  surety 
was  only  by  your  Majesty ;  he  who  loved  your  Majesty, 
as  I  ever  thought,  no  less  than  God ;  he  who  studied 
always  to  set  forwards  what  was  your  Majesty’s  will  and 
pleasure ;  he  that  cared  for  no  man’s  displeasure  to 
serve  your  Majesty;  he  that  was  such  a  servant  in 
my  judgment,  in  wisdom,  diligence,  faithfulness,  and 
experience,  as  no  prince  in  this  realm  ever  had;  he  that 
was  so  vigilant  to  preserve  your  Majesty  from  all 
treasons,  that  few  could  be  so  secretly  conceived,  but  he 
detected  the  same  in  the  beginning  ?  .  .  .  I  loved  him 
as  my  friend,  for  so  I  took  him  to  be ;  but  I  chiefly 
loved  him  for  the  love  which  I  thought  I  saw  him  bear 
ever  towards  your  Grace,  singularly  above  all  other.”  1 
Cromwell  was  beheaded  six  weeks  after,  on  July  28, 
1540 ;  and  the  same  day  Henry  married  Catherine 
Howard,  niece  to  the  chief  supporter  of  the  party  of 
the  Old  Learning. 

There  were,  no  doubt,  many  who  supposed,  either 
with  hopes  or  with  fears,  that  the  Primate  would  have 
fallen  along  with  the  statesman  to  whom  he  clung. 
This  was  not  to  be  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  the 
removal  of  Cromwell  from  the  scene  only  drew  the  King 
and  the  Archbishop  more  closely  together.  During  the 

1  J enkyns  i.  298. 


74  THOMAS  CRANMER 

seven  years  which  remained  of  Henry’s  life,  Cranmer 
transferred  to  the  King  the  timid,  affectionate  confi¬ 
dence  with  which  for  the  seven  years  past  he  had  leant 
upon  Cromwell.  And  the  King,  really  fond  of  his 
simple  and  unworldly  “chaplain,’  took  a  deligrt  in 
watching  and  defeating  the  plots  that  were  laid  agains 
him.  “  You,”  said  Cromwell  one  day  to  the  Archbishop, 
after  the  Archbishop  had  spoken  out  against  the  bill 
of  the  Six  Articles,'  “  you  were  born  in  a  happy  hour 
I  suppose ;  for  do  or  say  what  you  will,  the  King  wil 
always  well  take  it  at  your  hand.  And  I  must  needs 
confess,  that  in  some  things  I  have  complained  of  you 
unto  his  Majesty,  but  all  in  vain,  for  he  will  never  give 
credit  against  you,  whatsoever  is  laid  to  your  charge. 

The  first  of  the  plots  against  Cranmer  which  followed 
the  execution  of  Cromwell  arose  out  of  his  own  ecclesi¬ 
astical  family.  His  sense  of  fairness  had  led  him,  with 
the  King’s  approval,  to  distribute  his  patronage  in  the 
reformed  cathedral  between  the  Old  and  the  New 
Learning.  The  six  preaclierships  were  avowedly  filled 
upon  this  principle ;  the  twelve  canonries  were  mostly 
filled  by  former  monks.  Series,  one  of  the  preachers, 
and  Sandwich,  one  of  the  canons,  were  the  most  out¬ 
spoken  in  opposing  their  patron,  the  Archbishop ;  anc 
from  the  account  given  in  Strype  it  would  seem  that 
the  Archbishop  did  not  always  get  the  best  of  it.  One 
Trinity  Sunday  the  Archbishop  summoned  them  all  to 
Croydon  and  lectured  them.  He  told  Series,  who  had 
said  in  preaching  that  images  in  churches  were  not 
idols  that  the  two  things  were  the  same,  only  the 
one  name  was  Latin  and  the  other  Greek.  Sandwich 
formerly  a  leading  monk  of  Christ  Church,  and 
1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  258. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  75 

Warden  of  Canterbury  Hall  at  Oxford,1  had  the 
hardihood  to  defend  Series,  and  say  “that  he  did  not 
think  so;  an  image,  not  abused  with  honour,  is  an 
image,  and  not  an  idol”  It  was  a  good  defence;  and 
the  report  got  about  in  Canterbury  that  the  Archbishop, 
unable  to  controvert  it,  had  said  that  he  “would  be 
even  with  ”  Sandwich,  and  would  make  him  “  repent  his 
reasoning  with  him.”  The  meekest  man  sometimes  loses 
patience  with  the  rebels;  and  either  then  or  another 
day  Cranmer  is  said  to  have  exclaimed— “You  and  your 
company  hold  me  short ;  but  I  will  hold  you  as  short.” 

War  was  now  broken  out.  The  malcontents  of  the 
Chaptei  allied  themselves  with  the  renowned  visitor 
of  monasteries,  Dr.  London,  described  by  Archbishop 
Parker  as  “  a  stout  and  filthy  Prebendary  of  Windsor,”  2 
who  undertook  the  conduct  of  the  business.  Articles 
were  carefully  prepared  in  secret— first  against  Cranmer’s 
chaplains,  and  then,  as  the  spirits  of  the  men  rose, 
against  the  Primate  himself.  It  was  thought  that 
he  could  be  proved  to  have  offended  against  the  Act 
of  the  Six  Articles.  At  length  the  indictment  was  in¬ 
troduced  into  the  council-chamber,  where  Cranmer  had 
many  foes.  Thence  it  passed  into  the  King’s  hands. 
What  followed  must  be  told  in  the  graphic  language 
of  Morice.  “  The  King,  on  an  evening,  rowing  on  the 
*1  hames  in  his  barge,  came  to  Lambeth  Bridge,  and 
there  received  my  Lord  Cranmer  into  his  barge,  saying 
unto  him  merrily — ‘  Ah,  my  chaplain  !  I  have  news  for 
you  !  I  know  now  who  is  the  greatest  heretic  in  Kent.’ 
And  so  pulled  out  of  his  sleeve  a  paper,  wherein  was 
contained  his  accusation,  subscribed  with  the  hands  of 

1  Jenkyns  i.  238. 

2  MSS.  C.C.C.C.  No.  cxxviii.  p.  203,  as  quoted  by  Strype. 


76  THOMAS  CRANMER 

certain  prebendaries  and  justices  of  the  sbire.  Where- 
unto  my  Lord  Cranmer  made  answer,  and  besought 
his  Highness  to  appoint  such  commissioners  as  would 
effectually  try  out  the  truth  of  those  articles.  ‘Mary, 
said  the  King,  ‘  so  will  I  do ;  for  I  have  such  affiance 
in  your  fidelity,  that  I  will  commit  the  examination 
hereof  wholly  unto  you,  and  such  as  you  will  appoint.’  ” 
When  the  Archbishop  objected  that  it  would  not  look 
well,  the  King  stuck  to  his  point :  Cranmer,  he  said, 
would  tell  him  the  truth,  even  unquestioned,  if  he  had 

offended.1  # 

The  Archbishop  called  the  complainants  before  him, 

and  expostulated  with  them.  0  Mr.  St.  Leger,”  he 
exclaimed  passionately,  to  one  of  the  canons,  I  had  a 
o-ood  judgment  in  you ;  but  ye  will  not  leave  your  old 
mumpsimus .”  “  I  trust,”  retorted  St.  Leger,  “  we  use  no 
mumpsimuses  but  those  that  are  consonant  to  the  laws 
of  God  and  the  Prince.”  Others  were  less  bold.  One 
of  them  burst  out  weeping  at  the  Archbishop  s  fatherly 
address.  But  it  was  a  difficult  matter  to  get  to  the 
bottom  of ;  and  the  inquiry  dragged  on  without  much 
result,  until  Morice,  the  Archbishop’s  secretary,  took  it 
upon  him  to  write  to  some  of  the  Council,  requesting 
to  have  some  other  commissioners  despatched  to  his 
master’s  aid.  He  particularly  asked  for  Dr.  Leigh,  who 
had  had  great  experience  in  such  investigations.  Leigh 
in  an  instant  sent  men  to  search  the  houses  of  all 
the  prebendaries  and  others  who  were  thought  to  be 
mixed  up  in  the  matter.  Letters  were  found  which 
showed  plainly  that  not  only  was  Cranmer’s  favoured 
Suffragan,  the  Bishop  of  Dover, .  acquainted  with  all 
the  proceedings,  but  the  conspirators  had  throughout 
1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  252. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  77 

received  advice  and  encouragement  from  Gardiner, 
Bishop  of  Winchester.  Then  began  confessions  and 
entreaties.  “  Gentle  father,”  wrote  Sandwich  to  the 
Archbishop,  I  have  not  borne  so  good,  so  tender  a 
heart  to  you  as  a  true  child  ought  to  bear.  I  ask  of 
you  mercy,  with  as  contrite  a  heart  as  ever  did  David 
ask  of  God.  And  yet,  good  father,  I  did  never  bear 
malice  against  you.  The  greatest  cause  that  ever 
occupied  my  heart  against  you  was  that  I  saw  so  little 
quietness  among  us,  and  so  great  jars  in  Christ’s  re¬ 
ligion,  supposing  that  by  your  permission  and  sufferance 
it  did  arise,  which  was  not  so,  as  I  do  now  perceive. 
Good  father,  I  have  given  myself  unto  you,  heart,  body, 
and  service ;  and  you  have  taken  me  unto  you.”  To 
tears  and  prayers  of  this  kind,  Cranmer  replied  by  cast¬ 
ing  up  his  hands  to  heaven,  and  thanking  God  that 
amidst  so  many  enemies,  he  had  one  great  friend  and 
master,  without  whom  he  could  not  stand  a  day.  He 
prayed  God  to  make  them  good  men ;  and  added  that 
there  was  no  fidelity  upon  earth;  he  feared  his  left 
hand  would  accuse  his  right;  but  it  was  what  Christ 
had  prophesied  of  the  latter  days.  He  prayed  God 
shortly  to  finish  that  time.  A  brief  imprisonment 
followed,  and  such  of  the  conspirators  as  were  in  the 
Archbishop’s  service  were  dismissed  from  their  posts.1 

1  The  account  is  given  by  Strype  Cranmer  vol.  i.  244  foil. 
Bishop  Gardiner,  it  must  be  owned,  behaved  with  moderation  and 
prudence.  Visiting  Canterbury  one  day,  he  asked  Sandwich  about 
the  state  of  things  there,  who  told  him  how  little  Ridley’s  and. 
Scory’s  sermons  agreed  with  those  of  the  rest.  Gardiner  told  him 
that  he  was  sure  Cranmer  would  look  to  it.  He  advised  Sand¬ 
wich  never  to  preach  without  having  his  sermon  in  writing,  and 
when  any  one  else  preached  and  he  did  not  like  it,  “  hold  you  con¬ 
tented  and  meddle  not ;  so  shall  you  do  best.”  He  did,  however, 
say  that  Shether,  instead  of  crying  like  a  child,  ought  to  have 
stood  out  against  Cranmer. 


78  THOMAS  CRANMER 

Another  time  the  accusation  of  Cranmer  s  heresies 
was  made  openly  in  Parliament,  by  a  knight  of 
the  name  of  Gostwick,  who  had  been  a  secretary  of 
Cromwell’s,1  and  held  an  official  position.  When  the 
incident  came  to  the  King’s  ears,  “  his  Highness 
marvellously  stormed  at  the  matter,  and  said  that  Gost¬ 
wick  had  plied  a  villainous  part  so  to  abuse  in  open 
Parliament  the  Primate  of  the  realm,  specially  being 
in  favour  with  his  Prince,  as  he  was.  ‘What  will  they, 
quod  the  King,  ‘  do  with  him,  if  I  were  gone  ?  ’ 
Whereupon  the  King  sent  word  unto  Mr.  Gostwick 
after  this  sort — ‘  Tell  that  varlet  Gostwick  that  if  he  do 
not  acknowledge  his  fault  unto  my  Lord  of  Canterbuiy, 
I  will  sure  both  make  him  a  poor  Gostwick,  and  other¬ 
wise  punish  him  to  the  example  of  others. 

A  more  formidable  attempt  to  overthrow  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  on  the  part  of  the  Lords  in  the  Council 
attached  to  the  Old  Learning,  has  been  made  familiar 
to  all  Englishmen  by  the  genius  of  Shakespeare — 
though  Shakespeare,  for  dramatic  reasons,  has  boldly 
placed  it  twelve  years  too  early.  Complaint  was  made 
to  the  King  in  person,  that  Cranmer  and  his  learned 
men  with  their  unsavoury  doctrines,  had  made  three 
parts  of  the  land  to  become  abominable  heretics. 
England  was  thereby  in  danger  of  being  divided  against 
itself,  like  Germany.  The  Lords  begged  that  he  might 
be  committed  to  the  Tower,  until  he  could  be  examined. 
Henry  was  not  at  all  disposed  to  consent ;  but  when  it 
was  represented  that  so  long  as  Cranmer  continued  to 
be  a  member  of  Council  no  one  would  dare  to  give 
evidence  against  him,  he  agreed  that  he  should  be 

1  See  Index  to  Gasquet’s  Monasteries. 

2  Narratives  of  the  lief ormat  ion  p.  254. 


PUBLIC  AFFAIRS  UNDER  HENRY  79 

arrested  next  day  if  the  Council  then  saw  cause.  That 
same  night  Cranmer  was  roused  towards  midnight  by 
a  messenger  who  summoned  him  to  the  King.  The 
Archbishop  rose,  crossed  from  Lambeth  to  Whitehall, 
and  found  the  King  pacing  in  his  gallery.  Henry  told 
him  what  had  happened,  and  asked  what  he  thought  of 
the  proposal  of  the  Council.  Cranmer  thanked  him 
humbly  for  the  warning,  and  said  that  he  would 
willingly  go  to  the  Tower  until  his  doctrine  was  tried. 
“Oh  Lord  God,”  exclaimed  the  King,  “what  fond 
simplicity  have  you,  so  to  permit  yourself  to  be  im¬ 
prisoned,  that  every  enemy  of  yours  may  take  vantage 
against  you !  ”  He  would  not  hear  of  such  a  thing. 
He  told  him  to  go  to  the  Council  next  day,  and  if  the 
Council  should  insist  on  committing  him  to  the  Tower, 
to  display  to  them  a  ring,  which  the  King  gave  him,  by 
which  they  would  know  that  the  King  would  have  no 
one  deal  with  the  matter  but  himself. 

The  next  morning  he  was  summoned  to  the  Council 
by  eight  o  clock ;  but  when  he  arrived,  entrance  was 
denied  him.  Above  three-quarters  of  an  hour  he  was 
kept  waiting  outside  the  door,  among  servingmen  and 
lacqueys,  while  many  councillors  and  others  passed  in 
and  out.  Morice,  the  faithful  secretary,  indignant  at 
the  insult  to  his  master,  went  to  Dr.  Butts,  the  King’s 
physician.  Di.  Butts  came  and  saw  with  his  eyes,  and 
then  went  and  told  the  King.  “  Have  they  served  me 
so  ?  ”  cried  Henry.  “  It  is  well  enough ;  I  shall  talk 
with  them  by  and  by.”  At  length  Cranmer  was  called 
in.  The  ring  was  shown.  Then  Russell,  the  Lord 
President,  swore  a  great  oath,  and  said— “  Did  not  I  tell 
you,  my  Lords,  what  would  come  of  this  matter?  I 
knew  right  well  that  the  King  would  never  permit  my 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


80 


Lord  of  Canterbury  to  have  such  a  blemish  as  to  be 
imprisoned,  unless  it  were  for  high  treason.  Business 
was  broken  off,  and  they  all  went  straight  to  the  Iving. 

When  they  came  near,  Henry  burst  out— “  Ah,  my 
Lords !  X  had  thought  that  I  had  a  discreet  and  wise 
Council,  but  now  I  perceive  that  I  am  deceived.  How 
have  ye  handled  here  my  Lord  of  Canterbury  ?  What, 
make  ye  of  him  a  slave,  shutting  him  out  of  the  Council 
chamber  amongst  serving  men?  Would  ye  be  so 
handled  yourselves  ?  I  would  you  should  well  under¬ 
stand,  that  I  account  my  Lord  of  Canterbury  as  faithful 
a  man  towards  me  as  ever  was  prelate  in  this  realm,  and 
one  to  whom  I  am  many  ways  beholding,  by  the  faith  X 
owe  unto  God” — here  he  laid  his  hand  upon  his  bieast 
. — and  therefore  whoso  loveth  me  will  regard  him 
thereafter.”  XJpon  this  speech,  they  all,  and  especially 
the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  offered  an  excuse.  They  meant 
no  harm  to  the  Archbishop  by  putting  him  in  the 


Tower ;  they  thought  that  after  his  trial  he  would  be 
set  at  liberty  to  his  greater  glory.  “  Well,”  said  Henry, 
<£  I  pray  you  use  not  my  friends  so.  I  perceive  now 
well  enough  how  the  world  goeth  among  you.  There 
remaineth  malice  among  you  one  to  another.  Let  it 
be  avoided  out  of  hand,  I  would  advise  you.”  “  And 
so  the  King  departed,”  says  Morice,  “and  the  Lords 
shook  hands  every  man  with  my  Lord  Cranmer,  against 
whom  nevermore  after  no  man  durst  spurn  during  the 


King  Henry’s  life.”  1 


1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  254  foil. 


CHAPTER  III 

CRANMER  AND  THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 

It  was.  the  fashion  of  those  who  were  opposed  to 
Cranmer  m  the  earlier  part  of  his  episcopate,  to  speak 
ot  him  as  an  ignorant  man,  of  no  education.  An 
amusing  story  is  told  of  one  such  calumniator,  a  York¬ 
shire  priest,,  who,  sitting  among  his  neighbours  at  the 
alehouse,  said  that  the  Primate  had  “  as  much  learning 
as  the  goslings  of  the  green  that  go  yonder.”  He  was 
committed  to  prison  by  the  Council,  and  lay  there  eight 
or  nine  weeks.  When  it  came  to  Cranmer’s  knowledge, 
Cranmer  sent  for  him,  and  invited  him  to  “appose,”  or 
examine  him,  “in  grammar,  or  else  in  philosophy ’and 
other  sciences,  or  divinity.”  When  the  priest  declined— 
Well  then,  said  my  Lord,  “  I  will  appose  you.  Are 
you  not  wont  to  read  the  Bible  ?  ”  All  clergymen  were 
at  this  time  ordered  to  do  so.  “  Yes,  that  we  do  daily,” 
the  man  replied.  “  I  pray  you,  then,”  said  Cranmer, 

“ tel1  me  who  was  David’s  father  ?  ”  The  priest  stood 
still,  and  said,  “  I  cannot  surely  tell  your  Grace.”  Then 
said  my  Lord  again,  “  If  you  cannot  tell  me,  yet  declare 
unto  me,  who  was  Solomon’s  father?”  “Surely,” 
answered  the  priest,  “  I  am  nothing  at  all  seen  in  those 
geneolagies.”  “God  amend  ye,”  said  the  Archbishop, 

“  and  get  ye  home  to  your  cure,  and  from  henceforth 


82 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


learn  to  be  an  honest  man,  or  at  least  a  reasonable 
man.”  Cromwell  came  a  few  days  later  to  see  the 
Archbishop,  and  swore  that  the  popish  knaves  should 
pick  out  Cranmer’s  eyes  and  cut  his  throat,  before  he 
would  again  rebuke  them  for  slandering  him.1 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Cranmer  was  one  of  the  most 
learned  men  of  his  age.  “  At  all  times,”  says  his  secre¬ 
tary,  “when  the  King’s  Majesty  would  be  resolved  in 
any  doubt  or  question,  he  would  but  send  word  to  my 
Lord  overnight,  and  by  the  next  day  the  King  should 
have  in  writing  brief  notes  of  the  Doctors’  minds,  as 
well  divines  as  lawyers,  both  ancient,  old,  and  new, 
with  a  conclusion  of  his  own  mind;  which  he  could 
never  get  in  such  a  readiness  of  none,  no  not  of  all  his 
chaplains  and  clergy  about  him,  in  so  short  a  time. 
For,  being  thoroughly  seen  in  all  kinds  of  expositors, 
he  could  incontinently  lay  open  thirty,  forty,  sixty,  or 
more  somewhiles  of  authors,  and  so,  reducing  the  notes 
of  them  all  together,  would  advertise  the  King  more  in 
one  day,  than  all  his  learned  men  could  do  in  a  month. 
And  it  was  no  marvel ;  for  it  was  well  known  that  com¬ 
monly,  if  he  had  not  business  of  the  Prince’s,  or  special 
urgent  causes  before  him,  he  spent  three  parts  of  the 
day  in  study  as  effectually  as  [  if  ]  he  had  been  at  Cam¬ 
bridge.  And  therefore  it  was  that  the  King  said  on  a 
time  to  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  (the  King  and  my 
said  Lord  of  Winchester  defending  together  that  the 
‘  Canons  of  the  Apostles  ’  were  of  as  good  authority  as 
the  four  Evangelists,  contrary  to  my  Lord  Cranmer’s 
assertion),  ‘  My  Lord  of  Canterbury,’  said  the  King,  ‘  is 
too  old  a  Trewante  for  us  twain.’  ”  2 

1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  269  foil. 

2  Ibicl.  p.  249.  The  word  Trewante  is  explained  to  mean 


83 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 

When  Bishop  Ridley,  himself  a  man  of  great  attain¬ 
ments,  was  a  prisoner  in  the  Tower,  Queen  Mary’s 
secretary,  Bourne,  hinted  to  him  that  Cranmer’s  book  on 
the  Eucharist  was  not  really  Cranmer’s,  but  his.  “  ‘  Mr. 
Secretary/  quoth  I”— -it  is  Ridley  who  tells  the  tale— 

that  book  was  written  of  a  great  learned  man,  and 
him  which  is  able  to  do  the  like  again.  As  for  me,  I 
ensure  you  (be  not  deceived  in  me),  I  was  never  able  to 
do  or  write  any  such  like  thing.  He  passeth  me  no 
less  than  the  learned  master  his  young  scholar/  ”  1 

Some  idea  of  the  range  of  Archbishop  Cranmer’s 
learning  may  be  formed  by  examining  the  list  of  his 
remaining  books,  which  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Edward 
Burbidge.2  That  list  includes  some  350  printed  vol¬ 
umes,  and  about  100  manuscripts.  Of  course,  this 
number  represents  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  s  library,  of  which,  no  doubt,  most  is  now  lost  or 
destroyed.  It  is,  as  Mr.  Burbidge  says,  “  nothing  less 
than  astonishing  ”  to  find  the  traces  of  so  wide  and  deep 
a  study  of  Scripture  in  those  days.  There  are  two 
Hebrew  Bibles  of  Cranmer’s  in  existence,  besides  the 
great  Complutensian  Polyglofct,  together  with  Kimchi’s 
Hebrew  and  Latin  Commentary  on  the  earlier  Psalms, 
and  three  works  on  the  Hebrew  language.  One  of  the 
Hebrew  Bibles  is  interleaved  with  a  Latin  translation 
of  Cranmer’s  own,  in  Cranmer’s  hand.  It  is  needless  to 
say,  after  that,  though  the  fact  was  formerly  questioned, 
that  the  Archbishop  was  familiar  with  Greek.  Morice’s 
statement  about  his  master’s  knowledge  of  expositors 


Trojan,  i.  e.  a  fighter ;  but  perhaps  it  is  only  truant ,  used  in  a 
general  familiar  way,  as  ‘‘beggar/’  “knave”  (see  Skeat  s.v. 
Truant).  1  Quoted  in  Jenkyns  i.  lxxxv. 

2  Liturgies  and  Offices  of  the  Church  xvii. 


84 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


of  the  Bible  is  well  borne  out  by  the  evidence.  Not 
only  do  we  still  find  in  different  places  an  almost  com¬ 
plete  set  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  Fathers — several  of 
them  in  various  editions — as  well  as  an  imposing  array 
of  the  works  of  the  Schoolmen — the  Angelic  and  the 
Seraphic,  the  Subtle,  the  Irrefragable,  the  Invincible, 
and  all  the  rest : — his  direct  Commentaries  upon  Holy 
Scripture  include  the  great  exegetical  works  of  Thomas 
Aquinas  (in  edition  after  edition),  of  Denys  the  Carthu¬ 
sian,  of  Euthymius  and  CEcumenius,  and  other  “old” 
authors.  The  “new”  of  every  school  are  well  repre¬ 
sented  by  Bucer  and  Cajetan,  by  Erasmus  and  his 
adversary  Faber,  by  Francis  Titelmann  and  Melan- 
chthon.  Of  Cranmer’s  books  on  Liturgiology  and  other 
subjects,  it  is  only  necessary  here  to  say  that  we  have 
proof  of  an  immense  and  highly  diversified  erudition. 

That  Archbishop  Cranmer  was  well  acquainted  with 
the  books  which  he  thus  amassed  is  proved  not  only  by 
the  frequent  annotations  in  his  own  hand  which  enrich 
them ; — Mr.  Burbidge  justly  calls  especial  attention  to 
his  copies  of  Eusebius  and  of  Epiphanius  ; — the  same  is 
shown  by  his  manuscript  Commonplace  Books.  Of 
these  several  exist,  of  greater  or  less  extent.1  The 
history  of  the  most  important  of  them  is  in  part  known. 
That  famous  antiquary  Archbishop  Parker,  “  with  spying 
and  searching,”  discovered  it  to  be  in  the  hands  of  a 
certain  Dr.  Nevison,  Canon  of  Canterbury,  who,  having 
no  right  to  it,  denied  that  he  had  it.  Thereupon 
Parker  wrote  to  ask  the  help  of  the  Council  in 

1  The  Lambeth  Library  contains  a  Collection  of  Lcnvs,  showing 
the  extravagant  pretensions  of  Rome  (Stillingiieet,  1107),  and 
Notes  on  Justification  (Stillingfleet,  1108).  These  are  printed  in 
Jenkyns  ii.  1  and  121. 


85 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 

recovering  the  books,  saying  that  he  would  “as 
much  rejoice  to  win  them,  as  to  restore  an  old 
chancel  to  reparation.”  Sir  William  Cecil,  who  in 
eaily  days  had  presumed  to  admonish  Cranmer  for 
his  faults,1  now  rejoiced  to  hear  “of  such  hid  trea¬ 
sures  as  he  took  the  books  of  the  holy  Archbishop 
Cranmer  to  be.”  He  had  himself  lately  recovered  five  or 
six  written  books  of  his.  Letters  from  the  Council 
were  soon  despatched  to  Archbishop  Parker,  authorising 
him  to  search  the  canon  s  house  j  and  the  prize  is  now 
in  the  British  Museum,  with  this  correspondence  pre¬ 
fixed  to  it.2 

The  work,  which  has  never  been  printed,  is  in  two 
large  folio  volumes,  written  mainly  in  Ralph  Morice’s 
hand,  partly  also  in  those  of  other  secretaries.  It 
has  evidently  been  put  together  at  different  epochs  in 
Cranmer’s  life;  and  an  accurate  study  of  it  would  help 
to  show  the  gradual  formation  of  its  author’s  opinion 
upon  many  oi  the  points  of  which  it  treats.  It  contains 
an  immense  number  of  extracts— from  Clement  of  Rome 
and  Ignatius  j  from  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  Origen  and 
Cyprian ;  Lactantius,  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Paulinus  of  Nola, 
Augustine,  Fulgentius,  Jerome,  Vincent  of  Lerins,  Cas- 
sian,  Prudentius,  Gelasius,  Leo,  Sulpicius  Severus, 
Gregory  the  Great,  and  Bede ;  from  Eusebius,  Epipha- 
nius,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Chry¬ 
sostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Socrates  and  Sozomen, 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  Denys  the  Areopagite, 
John  Damascene,  Nicephorus  Chartophylax ;  from  Ra- 
banus  and  Haymo,  Aldhelm,  Bruno,  Bernard,  Anselm, 

1  Jenkyns  i.  351. 

7  L.  xi.  xii.  I  lie  letters  are  printed  in  A  rchbishop  Parker’s 
Correspondence  pp.  186 — 195. 


86  THOMAS  CRANMER 

Dagobert,  Otto  of  Freising;  from  Peter  Lombard, 
Thomas  Aquinas,  Duns  Scotus,  Hugh  of  St.  Victor, 
Albert  the  Great,  Alexander  of  Hales ;  from  the  letters 
of  the  Popes  (real  and  forged) ;  from  the  Canons  of 
Councils,  ecumenical  and  provincial,  foreign  and  English, 
down  to  the  Capitulum  Coloniense;  from  the  Ordinary 
Gloss  and  Lyranus;  from  Durandus  and  Honorius  de 
Celebratione  Missarum ,  Paulus  Cortosius  and  Panor- 
mitanus,  Orbellensis  and  Gerson,  Stapulensis,  Erasmus, 
Bilibald  Pirckheimer,  Eckius,  Cajetanus,  Luther,  Oeco- 
lampadius,  Osiander,  Bucer,  Brentius,  Melanchthon, 
Calvin,  Bullinger;  and  many  others. 

Sometimes  the  extracts  are  interrupted  to  give  the 
rimmt  of  an  argument  of  Eckius  or  Calvin,  sometimes 
objections  or  reasonings  of  Cranmer’s  own.  He  weighs 
the  consequences  of  accepting  universal  traditions,  and 
how  the  Pope’s  position  would  or  would  not  be  thereby 
strengthened.1 

1  The  extracts  have  been  made  on  sheets  of  paper,  which  have 
been  stitched  together  afterwards.  Evidently  the  present  form  is 
not  the  earliest  form,  because,  although  the  hands  vary,  no  one 
section  is,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  by  more  than  one  hand.  The 
extracts  from  the  Greek  writers  are  given  in  a  Latin  version. 
Here  and  there,  the  arguments  and  reasonings  are  in  English. 
So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  observe,  there  are  no  extracts  from 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  (though  the  Archbishop  had  at  any  rate  one  of 
his  works  ;  see  Burbidge  xxii.),  nor  from  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Didymus,  or  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  more  noteworthy  that 
there  are  none  from  Isidore  of  Seville  or  Amalarius,  though  he 
possessed  MSS.  of  some  of  their  writings  ;  see  Burbidge  xvii.  xix. 
Subjoined  is  the  list  of  contents,  written  (unless  I  mistake)  in 
Morice’s  hand,  though  the  paging  (which  I  have  not  given)  was 
not  completed  by  him,  and  has  only  been  filled  in  with  pencil. 

Tabula  Repertoria. 

1.  Sacre  scripturse  intellectus  et  vtilitas. 

2.  Quod  Authorum  scrip ta,  sine  verbo  dei,  non  sunt  accipienda 

pTo  articulis  fidei. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


87 


There  is  no  distinguishable  point  of  time  at  which 
Thomas  Cranmer  began  to  take  the  reforming  side  in 

3.  Scripturae  confirmantes  idem. 

4.  Doctores  idem  probantes. 

5.  Raciones  in  idem. 

6.  Conciliorum  decreta  sine  scriptura,  non  sunt  accipienda  pro 

articulis  fidei. 

7.  Veteres  Canones  Abrogati. 

8.  Ex  Angelorum  oraculis  non  licet  idem  facere. 

9.  Nec  miraculis  idem  probare  plias  est. 

10.  Nec  eciam  Apparitio  mortnorum  idipsum  satis  Astruit. 

11.  Sed  nec  consuetudini,  liac  in  re  fidendum  est. 

12.  Obiectiones,  quod  praeter  scripturae  Authoritatem,  accipiendi 

sunt  noui  articuli  fidei. 

13.  Tradiciones  non  scriptae. 

14.  Raciones  in  idem. 

15.  Nec  miracula,  nec  Christi  professio,  nec  locus,  nec  externum 

aliquod,  faciunt  bominem  sanctum,  aut  deo  gratum, 
sed  observacio  mandatorum  dei. 

16.  Noue  doctrinse. 

17.  In  Cerimoniis  fere  omnibus,  Iudeos  imitamur. 

18.  Osiander. 

19.  De  sacrificiis  Cbristianorum. 

20.  De  sacramentis. 

21.  De  charactere. 

22.  De  baptismo. 

23.  De  Eucharistia. 

24.  De  paenitencia.  *De  confessione. 

25.  De  Satisfactione. 

26.  De  Matrimonio. 

27.  De  ordinibus  ecclesiasticis. 

28.  De  Vnctione. 

29.  De  Impositione  manuum. 

30.  De  Confirmacione. 

31.  De  extrema  vnctione. 

32.  De  vnctione  paedum  [for  De  locione  pedum], 

33.  De  Aqua  benedicta. 

34.  De  feriis. 

35.  De  Sanctorum  Invocacione. 

36.  De  Imaginibus. 

37.  De  diuorum  Reliquiis 

38.  De  vera  Religione  et  supersticione. 

39.  Yt  oremus,  aut  peccatorum  veniam  consequamur,  non  est 

vllus  locus  prae  alio  deo  acceptior,  nec  pro  liiis  opus 
est  longe  pegrinari. 


88 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


the  controversies  of  the  age.  It  appears  that  from  the 
Cambridge  days  of  Erasmus  he  was  in  sympathy  with 
those  who,  in  the  language  of  the  time,  “  favoured  the 
Gospel.”  These  men,  of  whom  Bilney,  Latimer,  and 
Barnes  were  the  chief,  were  not  doetrinally  at  issue 
with  the  established  religion.  If  they  were  accounted 
heretics,  and  were  sometimes  found  abjuring  their 
heresies,  and  sometimes  burning  for  them,  it  was 
because  of  their  unsparing  denuntiation  of  practical 
abuses  which  had  been  sanctioned  by  time  and  by 
authority.  Pilgrimages,  the  worship  of  images,  indul¬ 
gences  (or  “  the  Bishop  of  Rome’s  pardons,”  as  they 
were  called),  the  narrowness  and  presumption  of  the 
scholastic  divinity,  compulsory  celibacy  of  the  priest- 


40.  De  Religiosis. 

41.  De  votis. 

42.  De  virginitate,  et  voto  castitatis. 

43.  De  Ecclesia. 

44.  De  Ecclesiis  edificandis,  dedicandis,  et  earuni  ornatu. 

45.  De  lioris  Canonicis. 

46.  De  Oracione,  et  cantu  Ecclesiastico. 

47.  De  Ieiunio. 

48.  De  iElemosina. 

40.  De  corruptis  ecclesiae  moribus. 

50.  De  Excommunicacione. 

51.  De  sepultura  mortuorum. 

52.  De  missa. 

53.  De  diuinis  prseceptis.  *De  Purgatorio. 

54.  De  Gracia  et  meritis.  ^Contra  Purgatorium. 

55.  De  Libero  Arbitrio. 

56.  Semper  orandus  est  deus,  vt  condonet  peccata,  eciam  piis 

filiis,  quibus  iam  omnia  peccata  dimissa  sunt. 

57.  De  beatissima  virgine.  *De  conuersione  impii. 

o8.  De  Obediencia  erga  magistratus.  *Gracia  praecedit 

„  meritum. 

*De  openbus  ante  spiiitum  sanctum. 

*De  tide. 

^Contra  merita  humana. 

*Added  in  later  band. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  89 

hood,  the  secular  pomp  of  the  higher  clergy,  supersti¬ 
tions  of  various  kinds,  were  the  object  of  their  attacks. 
What  they  mainly  desired  was  a  freer  and  more  spiritual 
Christianity  than  they  found.  One  great  practical  re¬ 
form  which  Cranmer  had  long  desired  to  promote  has 
already  been  mentioned — -The  liberation  of  his  country 
from  the  yoke  of  Rome.  Another  was  the  diffusion  of 
the  Bible  in  English. 

Archbishop  Cranmer  was,  of  course,  far  from  being 
the  first  English  Churchman  who  had  laboured  for  this 
cause.  Not  to  speak  of  earlier  and  more  partial  efforts, 
the  great  work  of  Wiclif  had  never  been  forgotten.  It 
had  drawn  forth  such  a  passionate  love  of  the  Bible  in 
the  hearts  of  Englishmen,  that  when  Henry  VII I /s 
commissioners  of  1530,  in  Archbishop  Warham’s  time, 
attempted  to  suppress  the  New  Testament  of  Tyndale — 
mainly  because  of  its  venomous  notes — and  reported 
that  no  such  translation  was  necessary,  they  yet  felt 
constrained  to  add  that  if  the  English  people  showed 
signs  of  forsaking  erroneous  opinions,  the  King  ‘Untended 
to  provide  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be  by  great 
learned  and  Catholic  persons  translated  into  the  English 
tongue,  if  it  should  then  seem  to  his  Grace  convenient 
to  do.” 1  The  matter  did  not  interest  Henry,  but 
Cranmer  took  it  up.  In  the  first  Convocation  over 
which  he  presided,  in  1534,  the  clergy  joined  to  a 
request  that  heretical  books  might  be  called  in,  and 
that  laymen  should  be  restrained  from  public  disputa¬ 
tions  on  the  faith,  the  request  that  his  Majesty  would 
nominate  trustworthy  persons  to  translate  the  sacred 
Scripture  into  the  vulgar  tongue,  and  permit  the  same  to 
be  delivered  to  the  people  according  to  their  learning. 

1  Dixon  i.  42. 


90 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


No  royal  action  was  taken  upon  this  petition,  but 
the  zealous  Primate  himself  endeavoured  to  form  a 
committee  for  the  purpose.  Taking  one  of  the  existing 
versions  of  the  New  Testament,  he  divided  it  among 
the  most  learned  of  the  bishops  and  others  to  be  cor¬ 
rected  and  returned  to  him  at  a  given  date.  Gardiner 
did  the  Gospels  of  St.  Luke  and  St.  John;  he  informs 
Cromwell,  in  June  1535,  that  he  has  finished  them.1 
Stokesley  was  to  have  done  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ; 
but  when  Cranmer  sent  his  secretary  to  Fulham  to  ask 
for  the  book,  the  Bishop  only  replied  that  he  “  marvelled 
what  my  Lord  of  Canterbury  meant ;  ”  it  was  “  abusing 
the  people  to  give  them  liberty  to  read  the  Scriptures, 
and  did  nothing  else  but  infect  them  with  heresies.  I 
have  bestowed  never  an  hour  upon  my  portion,”  he 
said,  “  nor  never  will.”  On  the  secretary’s  return  to 
Lambeth  Cranmer  marvelled  at  the  Bishop’s  froward- 
ness,  that  he  would  not  do  as  other  men  did;  but  a  wag 
who  was  present  explained,  to  the  Archbishop’s  amuse¬ 
ment,  that  our  Lord  had  left  nothing  in  His  “Testa¬ 
ment  ”  to  Bishop  Stokesley,  and  that  the  Apostles  were 
“simple  poor  fellows,”  in  whose  acts  the  haughty  prelate 
could  not  be  expected  to  take  an  interest.2 

Reluctance  on  the  part  of  some  of  those  to  whom  the 
task  was  assigned  was  joined  to  cross-action  on  the  part 
of  the  Vicegerent.  Before  Cranmer’s  committee-men 
could  finish  their  work,  Coverdale’s  version  of  the  Bible 
appeared — the  first  printed  version  of  the  whole  Bible 
in  English.  Cromwell  drew  up  an  Injunction  in  1536, 
that  by  the  middle  of  next  year  every  parson  should 
provide  his  church  with  a  Latin  Bible  and  an  English, 

1  See  Jenkyns  i.  xxvii. 

2  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  277. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  91 

which  could  be  no  other  than  Coverdale’s.  The  In¬ 
junction  appears  to  have  had  for  its  sole  effect  the 
quashing  of  Cranmer’s  project,  for  Coverd ale’s  Bible 
never  came  into  the  churches.1  But  the  year  after, 
when  “  Matthew’s  ”  Bible  was  issued,  Cranmer  was 
much  pleased  with  it — indeed,  he  is  thought  to  have 
been  cognisant  beforehand  of  its  preparation.2  He  sent 
a  copy  of  it  to  Cromwell,  with  the  request  that  it  might 
be  licensed  “  until  such  time  that  we,  the  Bishops,  shall 
set  forth  a  better  translation,  which  I  think,”  he  pur¬ 
sues,  “will  not  be  till  a  day  after  doomsday.  And  if 
you  continue  to  take  such  pains  for  the  setting  forth  of 
God  s  word  as  you  do,  although  in  the  mean  season  you 
suffer  some  snubs,  and  many  slanders,  lies,  and  re¬ 
proaches  for  the  same,  yet  one  day  He  will  requite 
altogether.  And  the  same  word  (as  St.  John  saith) 
which  shall  judge  every  man  at  the  last  day,  must 
needs  show  favour  to  them  that  now  do  favour  it.”3 
Although  Matthew’s  Bible  was  disfigured  by  many  of 
the  same  features  which  had  disfigured  Tyndale’s  New 
Testament,  the  petition  of  Cranmer  was  granted.  Nine 
days  later  he  writes  a  glowing  letter  of  thanks.  “  You 
have  shewed  me  more  pleasure  herein  than  if  you  had 
given  me  a  thousand  pound.  Hereby  such  fruit  of 
good  knowledge  shall  ensue,  that  it  shall  well  appear 
hereafter,  what  high  and  acceptable  service  you  have 
done  unto  God  and  the  King,  which  shall  so  much 
redound  to  your  honour,  that,  besides  God’s  reward,  you 
shall  obtain  perpetual  memory  for  the  same  within  the 
realm.  And,  as  for  me,  you  may  reckon  me  your  bond- 
man  for  the  same.”4  The  Archbishop’s  overflowing 

1  Dixon  i.  447.  2  Westcott  English  Bible  p.  70. 

3  Jenkyns  i.  196.  4  Ibid.  i.  199. 


92 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


delight  could  not  rest  without  writing  again  a  fortnight 
after.  “  These  shall  he  to  give  you  most  hearty  thanks 
that  any  heart  can  think,  and  that  in  the  name  of  them 
all  which  favoureth  God’s  word.  This  deed  you  shall 
hear  of  at  the  great  day,  when  all  things  shall  be  opened 
and  made  manifest.”1 

A  new  and  more  wholesome  edition  of  this  book  was 
prepared  at  Paris  in  1538  by  Coverdale — curiously 
enough  under  the  supervision  of  the  famous  Bonner, 
who,  on  his  promotion  directly  after  to  the  see  of 
London,  set  up  six  copies  in  the  nave  of  St.  Paul’s. 
This  edition  was  partly  destroyed  by  the  French  Inqui¬ 
sition,  but  was  finally  completed  in  England,  where  it 
was  introduced  by  a  new  Injunction  of  the  Vicegerent, 
to  the  effect  that  every  parish  church  was  to  have  "  one 
book  of  the  whole  Bible  of  the  largest  volume,”  and  the 
parishioners  to  be  “provoked  to  read  the  same.”  Arch¬ 
bishop  Cranmer  wrote  for  this — the  “  Great  Bible,”  as 
it  is  called — a  Preface,  which  is  one  of  his  most  felicitous 
pieces  of  work.  Some  there  were,  he  said,  that  were 
too  slow,  and  needed  the  spur;  some  other  too  quick, 
and  needed  more  of  the  bridle.  Some  lost  their  game 
by  short  shooting ;  some  by  overshooting.  Of  the  one 
sort  were  those  who  refused  to  read  or  listen  to  the 
Scriptures ;  of  the  other,  those  whose  conduct  hindered 
the  word  of  God  which  they  professed  to  further. 
Although  the  Scriptures  are  light,  and  food,  and  fire, 
Cranmer  did  not  wonder  that,  at  their  first  introduc¬ 
tion,  men  who  have  been  accustomed  to  live  without 
them  should  fail  to  appreciate  them,  as  savages  who 
have  lived  on  mast  and  acorns  objected  to  bread  made 
of  good  corn.  And  yet,  in  the  Archbishop’s  opinion, 

1  Jenkyns  i.  200. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  93 

the  reading  of  the  Bible  was  no  novelty  in  England. 
“It  is  not  much  above  one  hundred  years  ago  since 
Scripture  hath  not  been  accustomed  to  be  read  in  the 
vulgar  tongue  within  this  realm :  and  many  hundred 
years  before  that,  it  was  translated  and  read  in  the 
Saxons’  tongue,  which  at  that  time  was  our  mother’s 
tongue;  whereof  there  remaineth  yet  divers  copies,  found 
lately  in  old  abbeys,  of  such  antique  manners  of  writing 
and  speaking  that  few  men  now  been  able  to  read  and 
understand  them.1  And  when  this  language  waxed  old 
and  out  of  common  usage,  because  folk  should  not  lack 
the  fruit  of  reading,  it  was  again  translated  into  the 
newer  language,  whereof  yet  also  many  copies  remain, 
and  be  daily  found.”  A  long  and  spirited  translation 
from  St.  Chrysostom  deals  with  the  cavillers  of  Bishop 
Stokesley’s  type,  and  ends — “  The  reading  of  Scriptures 
is  a  great  and  strong  bulwark  or  fortress  against  sin ; 
the  ignorance  of  the  same  is  the  greater  ruin  and  de¬ 
struction  of  them  that  will  not  know  it.  That  is  the 
thing  that  bringeth  in  heresy;  that  is  it  that  causeth 
all  corrupt  and  perverse  living ;  that  is  it  that  bringeth 
all  things  out  of  good  order.”  As  St.  Chrysostom  was 
invoked  to  reprove  those  who  refused  to  read  the  Bible, 
so  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  is  brought  in  to  reprove 
the  other  sort  of  offenders.  “  It  appeareth  that  in  his 
time  there  were  some  (as  I  fear  me  there  been  also 
now  at  these  days  a  great  number)  which  were  idle 
babblers  and  talkers  of  the  Scripture  out  of  season  and 
all  good  order,  and  without  any  increase  of  virtue,  or 
example  of  good  living.  To  them  he  writeth  all  his 
first  book,  De  Theologia ,”  of  which  Cranmer  proceeds  to 

1  A  MS.  of  the  four  Gospels  in  Anglo-Saxon,  which  belonged 
to  Cranmer,  is  preserved  in  the  British  Museum  (1  A.  xiv.). 


94 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


give  a  vigorous  summary.  It  is  not  fit  for  every  man 
to  dispute  the  high  questions  of  divinity.  It  is  danger¬ 
ous  for  the  unclean  to  touch  that  thing  that  is  most 
clean ;  like  as  the  sore  eye  taketh  harm  by  looking 
upon  the  sun.  Contention  and  debate  about  Scriptures 
doth  most  hurt  to  ourselves  and  to  the  cause  that  we 
would  have  furthered.  “  All  our  holiness  consisteth  in 
talking ;  and  we  pardon  each  other  from  all  good  living, 
so  that  we  may  stick  fast  together  in  argumentation.5’ 
To  conclude,  says  the  Archbishop  in  his  own  words, 
“  every  man  that  cometh  to  the  reading  of  this  holy 
Book  ought  to  bring  with  him  first  and  foremost  the 
fear  of  Almighty  God;  and  then  next,  a  firm  and  stable 
purpose  to  reform  his  own  self  according  thereunto, 
and  so  to  continue,  shewing  himself  to  be  a  sober  and 
fruitful  hearer  and  learner,”  lest  he  lay  himself  open  to 
the  challenge  of  the  Psalm,  “  Why  dost  thou  preach  My 
laws,  and  takest  My  testament  in  thy  mouth,  whereas 
thou  hatest  to  be  reformed,  and  hast  been  partaker  with 
advoutrers  ?  ” 1 

In  1542,  after  the  fall  of  Cromwell,  a  fresh  effort  was 
made.  The  Great  Bible  failed  to  give  satisfaction — at 
any  rate  to  the  clergy  of  the  Old  Learning,  now  in  the 
ascendant.  Convocation  declared,  in  reply  to  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  Archbishop,  that  it  could  not  be  without 
scandal  retained,  unless  it  were  revised.  A  revision 
was  agreed  upon.  The  Bible  was  partitioned  among 
groups  of  scholars  and  prelates.  Bishop  Gardiner 
signalised  himself  on  this  occasion  by  naming  a  curious 
list  of  Latin  words  which  he  thought  it  important  to 
use  in  the  English  translation  of  the  Bible ;  but  other- 

1  The  Preface  is  printed  in  Jenkyns  ii.  104  foil.  It  only  ap¬ 
pears  in  the  later  editions  of  the  Great  Bible. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


95 


wise  he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  opposed  to  the 
project  any  more  than  to  that  of  seven  years  before. 
Suddenly,  however,  the  work  was  stopped  by  royal  orders. 
The  King,  so  Cranmer  announced,  had  determined  to 
commit  the  translation  to  the  two  Universities.  It 
is  affirmedt  and  reaffirmed  by  serious  authors,  that 
this  was  a  ruse  of  Cranmer’s,  who  was  afraid  lest 
Gardiner  should  carry  his  point.1  Of  this  there  is  no 
evidence  whatever — it  is  only  a  surmise  of  Strype’s;  but 
to  the  angry  remonstrances  of  Convocation  Cranmer 
replied  that  he  should  abide  by  the  King’s  decision. 
If  indeed  the  King’s  decision  was  due  to  Cranmer’s  own 
suggestion,  Cranmer’s  behaviour  in  the  matter  is  inex¬ 
plicable.  The  Universities  received  no  communication 
upon  the  subject  from  the  King,  and  there  was  no 
further  attempt  to  provide  an  authoritative  translation 
while  Henry  lived. 

The  general  English  public  in  Henry  VIII.’s  reign 
was  but  little  acquainted  with  the  progress  of  events 
upon  the  Continent  of  Europe;  and  our  Reformation, 
before  the  accession  of  Edward  VI.,  was  not  much 
affected  by  the  divines  of  Germany  and  Switzerland. 
Cranmer,  who  had  travelled  in  Germany,  and  had 
married  a  German  wife,  was  one  of  the  few  Englishmen 
who  kept  up  an  intercourse  with  foreign  scholars.  Al¬ 
though  by  no  means  disposed — at  least  in  those  days — 
to  make  the  English  Church  a  humble  pupil  of  Witten¬ 
berg  or  of  Zurich,  he  wished  to  see  co-operation  and  a 
good  intelligence  between  the  reforming  party  abroad 
and  his  own  emancipated  Church.  The  Protestant 
princes  of  Germany  had  formed  a  league  for  mutual 
defence,  and  negotiations  passed  between  them  and 
1  See  for  instance  Westcott  English  Bible  113. 


96 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Henry  on  the  subject  of  his  joining  it.  In  1535  Henry 
sent  to  Schmalcalden,  where  the  league  assembled,  an 
embassy  headed  by  his  former  almoner  Edward  Foxe, 
recently  made  Bishop  of  Hereford.  To  him  was  joined 
one  of  those  men  of  secondary  importance  in  history, 
whose  careers  display  in  the  most  instructive  manner 
the  shifting  currents  of  an  age  of  transition.  This  was 
Nicholas  Heath,  destined  in  Mary’s  reign  to  become 
Archbishop  of  York  and  Lord  High  Chancellor,  in  which 
capacity  he  signed  the  death-warrant  of  Cranmer.  Heath 
was  at  this  time  all  on  the  side  of  progress.  He  is  said 
to  have  spoken  boldly  to  Cranmer  in  defence  of  Frith’s 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  when  Cranmer  still  thought 
it  “notably  erroneous.”1  The  Archbishop,  always  un¬ 
stinting  in  his  praise  of  those  who  were  upon  his  side, 
commended  him  to  Cromwell  as  one  “which  for  his 
learning,  wisdom,  discretion,  and  sincere  mind  toward 
his  prince,  I  know  no  man  in  my  judgment  more  meet 
to  serve  the  King’s  Highness’  purpose  ” ;  and  he  urged 
that  he  should  be  provided  with  a  stipend  fit  for  an 
ambassador.2  The  Archdeaconry  of  Stafford  was  as¬ 
signed  to  him  as  an  endowment,  as  that  of  Taunton 
had  been  assigned  to  Cranmer  for  a  similar  purpose ; 
and  he  held  that  preferment  when,  with  Foxe  and 
Barnes,  he  attended  the  gathering  at  Schmalcalden. 
Not  much  was  gained  at  that  gathering,  either  in  the 
way  of  doctrinal  agreement  or  in  bringing  the  Ger¬ 
mans  to  commit  themselves  to  the  King’s  divorce  ;  but 

1  Foxe  viii.  699  (ed.  1849). 

2  Jenkyns  i.  87.  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  letter  refers  to 
the  Schmalcalden  mission,  or  whether  Heath  had  already  been 
sent  into  Germany.  The  mention  of  “  the  King’s  great  cause  ” 
alone,  may  be  thought  to  show  that  it  belongs  to  a  somewhat 
earlier  time. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  9? 

Cranmer’s  opinion  of  Heath  was  justified  by  the  im¬ 
pression  which  he  made  upon  Melanchthon.  “  The 
Archdeacon,  Nicholas  Heath,”  wrote  Melanchthon  to 
Carnerarius,  “is  the  only  one  of  our  guests  who  is 
distinguished  by  culture  and  learning;  the  rest  are 
destitute  of  our  philosophy  and  sweetness,  so  I  avoid 
their  society  as  much  as  I  can.”  1  The  German  princes 
offered  to  make  Henry  the  Defender  of  their  league  on 
condition  of  his  accepting  the  Confession  of  Augsburg. 
This  the  old  antagonist  of  Luther  declined  °to  do. 
Bishop  Gardiner  supplied  him  with  cogent  political 
reasons  for  declining;  and  it  is  probable  that  Arch¬ 
bishop  Cranmer,  if  he  was  consulted,  would  support  the 
decision  by  theological  arguments. 

It  was  now  judged  advisable  that  the  English  Church, 
which,  by  the  lips  of  the  Supreme  Head,  had  several 
times,  since  the  breach  with  Rome,  declared  that  she 
had  no  intention  of  varying  in  any  point  from  the  true 
Catholic  faith,  should  express  in  some  detail  what  that 
faith,  in  her  judgment,  was.  German  divines  were  to 
see  how  far  the  English  were  prepared  to  go  along  with 
them.  .  Diversities  at  home  would  be  rallied  °to  an 
authoritative  standard.  Accordingly,  in  1536,  the  Ten 
Articles  were  prepared,  the  first  precursors  of  our  present  f 
Thirty-Nine.  They  bore  the  title  of  Articles  devised  by 
the  King's  Highness'  Majesty ,  to  stablish  Christian  quiet¬ 
ness  and  icnity  among  us,  and  to  avoid  contentious 
opinions :  which  Articles  be  also  approved  by  the  consent 
and  determination  of  the  whole  clergy  of  this  realm. 
Whose  hand  drew  them  up  cannot  now  be  ascertained, 
but  the  first  signature  to  them,  after  the  Vicar  General’s' 

1  Seckendorf  Comm,  de  Luth.  lib.  iii.  §xxxix.  Add.  (e\  quoted 
by  J enkyns  1.  87.  '  ”  1 


II 


98 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


is  naturally  that  of  Cranmer ;  and  they  well  represent 
his  state  of  opinion  at  the  time.  These  Articles,  as  the 
preface  states,  are  divided  into  two  parts — a  division 
which  lays  the  true  basis  of  our  Catholic  Reforma¬ 
tion,  and  which  Cranmer  rightly  claims  as  a  great 
re-discovery  of  the  time.1  “  The  one  part  containeth 
such  [Articles]  as  be  commanded  expressly  by  God,  and 
be  necessary  to  our  salvation  ;  and  the  other  containeth 
such  things  as  have  been  of  a  long  continuance  for  a 
decent  order  and  honest  policy  prudently  instituted  and 
used  in  the  churches  of  our  realm,  although  they  be 
not  expressly  commanded  of  God,  nor  necessary  to  our 
salvation/'  Acceptance  of  the  canonical  Scriptures,  and 
of  the  three  Creeds,  as  the  rule  of  faith;  holy  Baptism; 
the  sacrament  of  Penance,  as  a  necessity  for  all  who 
have  committed  mortal  sin  after  baptism,  but  explained 
after  a  truly  evangelical  manner ;  the  presence  of 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Eucharist  briefly 
stated,  though  without  using  the  technical  terms  of 
transubstantiation ;  J ustification,  defined  in  the  words 
of  Melanchthon,  and  to  be  attained  by  contrition  and 
faith,  joined  with  charity,  but  not  as  though  these 
were  its  meritorious  cause  ;  these  are  the  first  necessary 
part  of  the  little  book.  In  the  second  part  the  people 
are  taught  how  to  use  and  how  not  to  use  sacred  images, 
how  to  honour  and  how  not  to  honour  saints,  what  kind 
of  prayers  may  be  addressed  to  saints,  the  meaning  of 
various  rites  and  ceremonies  which  are  instructive  and 
laudable,  though  they  have  no  power  to  remit  sin ;  and 
of  Purgatory,  that  no  man  ought  to  be  grieved  at  the 
eontinuanoe  of  prayers  for  the  departed,  “  that  they 
may  be  relieved  and  holpen  of  some  part  of  their 

1  Jenkyns  i.  216. 


99 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 

pain,”  1  but  that  “  the  place  where  they  be,  the  name 
thereof,  and  kind  of  pains  there,  be  to  us  uncertain  by 
Scripture,”  so  that  the  abuses  connected  with  the 
doctrine  ought  to  be  clearly  put  away,  such  as  that  “  the 
Bishop  of  Rome’s  pardons,”  or  masses  said  at  Scala 
Caeli  or  otherwhere,  could  send  souls  straight  to  heaven.2 

These  Articles  were  put  forth  in  July  1536.  In  the 
preface  to  them,  the  King  declared  that  if  they  were 
obediently  received  by  the  people,  he  should  be  not  a  little 
encouraged  “  to  take  further  travails,  pains,  and  labours  ” 
for  their  commodities.  There  was,  indeed,  much  left  to 
be  desired  in  the  reception  of  the  Articles  and  of  the 
royal  Injunctions  which  accompanied  them.  At  the 
time  of  their  appearance,  the  abbeys  were  fast  falling, 
and  the  “  Pilgrimage  of  Grace  ”  attested  the  unpopu¬ 
larity  of  the  King’s  measures.  The  northern  clergy 
assembled  and  passed  a  series  of  reactionary  resolutions. 
Henry  turned  fiercely  upon  the  bishops  of  the  reforming 
school,  and,  probably  more  to  appease  the  opposite 
faction  than  for  any  other  reason,  upbraided  them  in 
a  general  manifesto  for  speaking  against  accustomed 
ceremonies  in  spite  of  the  Ten  Articles  and  Injunctions. 

Nevertheless,  he  was  so  well  pleased  with  his  first 
attempt  at  doctrinal  pacification,  that  a  further  step 
was  determined  upon.  At  the  beginning  of  the  next 
year,  Cromwell  summoned  the  bishops  to  a  meeting. 
After  he  had  opened  the  proceedings,  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  thus  stated  the  business  in  hand — 

1  In  the  original  draft,  it  seems  to  have  run,  “  that  they  may 
sooner  obtain  the  mercy  of  God  and  fruition  of  His  glory.”  The 
alteration  is  probably  due  to  the  King’s  own  hand. 

2  The  Ten  Articles,  together  with  the  Bishops’  Book  and  the 
King’s  Book ,  may  be  found  in  Lloyd’s  Formularies  of  Faith  put 
forth  by  Authority  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  (Oxford,  1856). 


100 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


“  There  be  weighty  controversies  now  moved  and  put 
forth,  not  of  ceremonies  and  light  things,  but  of  the 
true  understanding  and  of  the  right  difference  of  the 
Law  and  the  Gospel ;  of  the  manner  and  way  how  sins 
be  forgiven;  of  comforting  doubtful  and  wavering 
consciences,  by  what  means  they  may  be  certified  that 
they  please  God,  seeing  they  feel  the  strength  of  the 
law  accusing  them  of  sin  ;  of  the  true  use  of  the  Sacra¬ 
ments,  whether  the  outward  work  of  them  doth  justify 
man,  or  whether  we  receive  our  justification  by  faith. 
Item,  which  be  the  good  works,  and  the  true  service 
and  honour  which  pleaseth  God  ;  and  whether  the  choice 
of  meats,  the  difference  of  garments,  the  vows  of  monks 
and  priests,  and  other  traditions  which  have  no  word  of 
God  to  confirm  them,  whether  these,  I  say,  be  right  good 
works,  and  such  as  make  a  perfect  Christian  man,  or  no. 
Item,  whether  vain  service  and  false  honouring  of  God, 
and  man’s  traditions,  do  bind  men’s  consciences,  or  no. 
Finally,  whether  the  ceremony  of  Confirmation,  of 
Orders,  and  of  Annealing,  and  such  other,  which  cannot 
be  proved  to  be  institute  of  Christ,  nor  have  any  word 
in  them  to  certify  us  of  remission  of  sins,  ought  to 
be  called  Sacraments,  and  to  be  compared  with  Baptism 
and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  or  no.” 1 

Unfortunately  for  the  cause  of  peace,  Cromwell  had 
introduced  into  the  meeting  the  Scotchman  Aless,  who 
was  at  this  time  a  guest  of  the  Archbishop’s  at  Lambeth. 
Aless  bad  sojourned  long  among  the  Lutherans  of 
Germany,  and  delivered  himself  with  an  assurance  which 
provoked  the  deep  resentment  of  Bishop  Stokesley  and 
other  prelates  of  the  Old  Learning.  Yet  so  loyal  were 
they  all  to  the  cause  of  Catholic  unity,  that  there  was 

1  Jenkyns  ii.  16.  > 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  101 

no  difficulty  in  forming  a  committee,  by  whose  labours 
m  a  very  short  time  was  produced  the  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man,  commonly  known  as  the  Bishops’  Book. 
In  this  work,  Cranmer,  along  with  Bishop  Foxe,  had  the 
chief  share.1  No  small  amount  of  discretion  and 
conciliatory  feeling  must  have  been  required  to  bring 
such  diversity  of  views  into  agreement.  It  is  impossible 
without  emotion  to  read  this  grave  and  fervent,  practical 
and  large-minded,  exposition  of  the  Christian  faith  and 
life,  as  understood  by  the  Church  of  England  under 
Henry,  and  to  see  the  names  appended  to  it.  Side  by 
side  with  Archbishop  Cranmer’s,  appears  the  name 
of  Edward  Lee  of  York,  the  old  antagonist  of  Erasmus. 
Stokesley  and  Gardiner,  Tunstall,  Clerk,  Yeysey,  Long- 
land,  and  Sampson,  are  willing  to  be  considered  its  joint 
authors  with  Latimer  and  Shaxton,  Goodrich,  Foxe, 
Hillsey,  and  Barlow.  Among  the  signatures  of  men 
who  were  not  }7et  bishops,  stand  those  of  Bonner,  Skip, 
and  Heath,  of  Richard  Smith,  and  May,  Nicholas 
Wotton,  and  Richard  Cox.  He  would  have  been  a  bold 
man  who  would  have  undertaken  in  1537  to  say  in 
what  directions  this  united  band  of  divines  would 
afterwards  diverge. 

The  “  Bishops’  Book  ”  contained  an  explanation  of  the 
Creed,  the  Seven  Sacraments,  the  Ten  Commandments, 
the  Pater  Noster,  and  the  Ave  Maria;  of  Justification, 
and  of  Purgatory.  Doctrinally,  it  occupies  the  same 
position  as  the  Ten  Articles,  upon  which  it  is  founded. 
On  some  of  the  crucial  points,  such  as  Penance  and  the 
Eucharist,  Justification  and  Purgatory,  it  only  repeats 
the  Articles  with  a  few  verbal  alterations.  Although 
all  the  seven  Sacraments  are  affirmed  to  deserve  that 
1  Latimer  to  Cromwell,  in  Jenkyns  i.  188. 


102 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


name,  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism,  Penance,  and  of  the 
Altar  are  set  above  the  rest,  as  having  been  instituted 
by  Christ  Himself  with  outward  visible  signs  and  con- 
v eying  graces  whereby  sins  are  remitted.  The  Ave 
Maria  is  explained  to  be  not  a  prayer,  but  an  act  of 
praise  only,  and  nothing  is  said  about  the  invocation 
of  her  or  of  other  saints.  The  Church  of  Borne  is  to 
be  considered  as  only  one  Church  among  many. 

There  is  one  doctrine  dealt  with  in  the  “  Bishops’ 
Book,”  of  which  it  is  necessary  to  take  more  extended 
notice,  because  about  this  time  Cranmer’s  personal 
opinion  on  it  was  inclined  to  vary  from  what  he  acknow¬ 
ledged  as  binding  in  public.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  Holy 
Orders,  and  of  ecclesiastical  authority.  Towards  the  end 
of  1540,  questions  were  sent  round  to  all  the  bishops, 
with  a  view  (as  it  seems)  to  the  compilation  of  the 
“  King’s  Book,”  which  in  1542  superseded  the  “  Bishops’ 
Book.”  The  questions  were  probably  drawn  up  by 
Cranmer  himself,  and  his  answers  to  them  remain,  as 
well  as  those  of  other  bishops.  In  these  he  states  his 
opinion  as  follows — 

“All  Christian  princes  have  committed  unto  them 
immediately  of  Cod  the  whole  cure  of  all  their  subjects, 
as  well  concerning  the  administration  of  God’s  word  for 
the  cure  of  souls,  as  concerning  the  ministration  of 
things  political  and  civil  governance  :  and  in  both  these 
ministrations  they  must  have  sundry  ministers  under 
them  to  supply  that  which  is  appointed  to  their  several 
offices.  The  civil  ministers  under  his  Majesty  ...  be 
those  whom  it  shall  please  his  Highness  for  the  time  to 
put  in  authority  under  him,  as  for  example,  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  Lord  Treasurer,  etc.  The  ministers  of  God’s 
word  under  his  Majesty  be  the  bishops,  parsons,  vicars, 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


103 


and  sucli  other  priests  as  be  appointed  by  his  Highness 
to  that  ministration  :  as  for  example,  the  Bishop  of 
Canterbury  .  .  .  the  Parson  of  Winwick,  etc.  All  the 
said  officers  and  ministers,  as  well  of  the  one  sort  as  of 
the  other,  be  appointed,  assigned,  and  elected  in  every 
place,  by  the  laws  and  orders  of  kings  and  princes. 

“  In  the  admission  of  many  of  these  officers  be  divers 
comely  ceremonies  and  solemnities  used,  which  be  not 
of  necessity,  but  only  for  a  good  order  and  seemly 
fashion ;  for  if  such  offices  and  ministrations  were 
committed  without  such  solemnity,  they  were  neverthe¬ 
less  truly  committed.  And  there  is  no  more  promise  of 
God  that  grace  is  given  in  the  committing  of  the 
ecclesiastical  office,  than  it  is  in  the  committing  of  the 
civil  office.” 

In  the  Apostles’  time,  Cranmer  continues,  because 
there  were  no  Christian  princes  to  govern  the  Church, 
ministers  could  only  be  appointed  by  the  consent  of 
the  Christian  multitude  among  themselves.  They  took 
such  curates  and  priests  as  they  knew  to  be  meet,  or  as 
were  commended  to  them  by  men  replete  with  the 
Spirit.  Sometimes  the  Apostles  appointed  them ;  in 
which  case  the  people  with  thanks  accepted  them,  “not 
for  the  supremity,  impery,  or  dominion,  that  the 
Apostles  had  over  them  to  command,  as  their  princes 
and  masters,  but  as  good  people,  ready  to  obey  the  advice 
of  good  counsellors.” 

Bishops  and  priests  were  “both  one  office  in  the 
beginning  of  Christ’s  religion.  A  bishop  may  make  a 
priest  by  the  Scripture,  and  so  may  princes  and  govern¬ 
ors  also,  and  that  by  the  authority  of  God  committed  to 
them,  and  the  people  also  by  their  election ;  for  as  we 
read  that  bishops  have  done  it,  so  Christian  emperors 


104  THOMAS  CRANMER 

and  princes  usually  have  done  it,  and  the  people,  before 

Christian  princes  were,  commonly  did  elect  their  bishops 
and  priests. 

“In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  appointed  to  be 
a  bishop,  or  a  priest,  needeth  no  consecration  by  the 

Scripture,  for  election  or  appointing  thereunto  is 
sufficient.” 

lo  the  question  whether,  by  the  Scripture,  a  bishop 
or  priest  may  excommunicate,  and  whether  they  alone, 
the  Archbishop  replies  that  Scripture  neither  commands 
nor  forbids  them.  If  the  law  of  the  land  permits  them, 
they  may ;  if  it  forbids,  they  may  not ;  and  the  law  may 
empower  men  who  are  not  priests  to  excommunicate. 

^  #  writes  Cianmer,  at  the  end  of  his  answers, 

“  is  mine  opinion  and  sentence  at  this  present ;  which] 
nevertheless,  I  do  not  temerariously  define,  but  refer 
the  judgment  thereof  wholly  unto  your  Majesty.”1 

Cranmer’s  opinion  on  the  subject  is  of  some  contro¬ 
versial  importance  at  the  present  time,  inasmuch  as  his 
opinion  was  shared  by  some  other  prelates— notably  by 
Bishop  Barlow,  the  chief  consecrator  of  Archbishop 
Parker.  If  the  defective  intention  of  Barlow  was 
enough  to  invalidate  his  consecration  of  Parker,  the 
same  might  with  some  justice  be  said  of  the  twenty- 
three  bishops  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  which 
would  introduce  grave  confusion  into  the  history  of  the 
Church.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  neither  Barlow  nor 
Cranmer  had  the  smallest  wavering  of  intention  with 
regard  to  the  consecrations  which  they  were  performing 
o  fancy  that  the  bishops  whom  they  consecrated  might 
have  been  as  true  bishops  by  the  King’s  command,  or 
the  people’s  choice,  without  any  of  the  “  comely  cere- 

1  See  Jenkyns  ii.  98  foil. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  105 

monies  and  solemnities  ”  in  use,  gives  no  proof  of  an 
inadequate  intention  or  a  failure  of  faith,  when  the  due 
forms  were  actually  employed.  There  was  no  contradiction 
between  Cranmer’s  answers  to  the  questions  of  1540,  and 
the  full  statement  upon  the  Sacrament  of  Orders  to 
which  he  had  set  his  hand  in  the  “Bishops’  Book.”  The 
chapter  on  the  Sacrament  of  Orders  is  the  longest  in 
that  book.  It  unhesitatingly  affirms  that  this  Sacrament 
was  “  instituted  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  in  the  New 
Testament ;  that  it  has  for  its  visible  and  outward 
sign  “  prayer  and  imposition  of  the  bishop’s  hands  ;  ”  1 
that  it  has  “  annexed  unto  it  assured  promises  of  excel¬ 
lent  and  inestimable  things  ;  ”  that  “  God  hath  instituted 
and  ordained  none  other  ordinary  mean  whereby  He  will 
make  us  partakers  of  the  reconciliation  which  is  by 
Christ,  and  confer  and  give  the  graces  of  His  Holy 
Spirit  unto  us,”  except  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  for  the 
dispensing  of  which  the  ministry  is  necessary.  Nor 
were  these  views  only  the  prevalent  views,  acquiesced  in 
by  Cranmer  for  the  sake  of  unity.  When  in  1548  he 
translated  the  Catechism  of  Justus  Jonas,  he  put  forth 
in  his  own  name  a  statement  concerning  the  sacred 
ministry  which  suggests  no  ambiguity.  «  The  Apostles,” 
it  says,  “  laid  their  hands  upon  [others]  and  gave  them 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  themselves  received  of  Christ 
the  same  Holy  Ghost,  to  execute  this  office.  And  they 
that  were  so  ordained  were  indeed  the  ministers  of  God 
as  the  Apostles  themselves  were.  And  so  the  minis¬ 
tration  of  God’s  word  (which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  did  first  institute)  was  derived  from  the 
Apostles  unto  others  after  them,  by  imposition  of  hands 

1  It  is  noticeable  that  nothing  is  said  of  the  porrection  of  the 
instruments. 


106 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


and  giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  the  Apostles’  time  to 
our  days.  And  this  shall  continue  in  the  Church,  even 
to  the  world’s  end.”  1 

The  “ Bishops’  Book”  marks  the  point  which  had 
been  reached  by  the  reforming  movement  in  1537.  It 
satisfied  the  respectable  school  of  Reformers  like 
Latimer ;  it  carried  along  with  it  the  conservatives  like 
Tunstall.  But  it  received  no  collective  sanction  from 
the  Church ;  and  the  King,  although  he  so  far  approved 
of  it  as  to  send  it  to  the  King  of  Scotland  as  an  example 
for  the  Scotch  to  imitate,  refused  to  give  it  his  royal 
authority.2 

Cranmer  himself  is  partly  responsible  for  not  having 
let  well  alone.  He  was  anxious,  like  Cromwell,  to 
resume  the  interrupted  negotiations  with  the  German 
Protestants.  In  May,  1538,  a  deputation  from  them 
arrived  in  England.  It  consisted  of  Burckhardt,  Vice- 
chancellor  of  Saxony,  and  two  others.  They  had  hardly 
been  a  month  in  England  before  they  endeavoured  to 
gain  from  Cranmer  a  commutation  of  penance  for  a 
clergyman  named  Atkinson,  who  held  novel  opinions 

1  Catechismus  p.  196  (Oxford,  1829). 

2  The  King’s  strictures  upon  the  “  Bishops’  Book  ”  may  be  seen 
in  Jenkyns  ii.  21  foil.,  and  on  p.  65  foil.  Cranmer’s  comments 
upon  these  strictures.  For  those  who  suppose  that  Cranmer’s 
attitude  was  one  of  unvarying  subserviency  towards  the  royal 
theologian,  it  will  be  a  good  corrective  to  read  his  comments  upon 
Henry’s  observations.  The  tone  of  them  is  strangely  outspoken 
and  Iree,  as  he  criticises  alike  the  grammar,  the  logic,  and  the 
theology  of  Henry.  “  I  trust  the  King’s  Highness  will  pardon 
my  presumption,”  he  writes  in  returning  the  book  to  Cromwell, 
“that  I  have  been  so  scrupulous,  and  as  it  were  a  picker  of 
quarrels  to  his  Grace’s  book,  making  a  great  matter  of  every  light 
fault,  or  rather  where  no  fault  is  at  all ;  which  I  do  only  for  this 
intent,  that  because  the  book  now  shall  be  set  forth  by  his  Grace’s 
censure  and  judgment,  I  would  have  nothing  therein  that  Momus 
could  reprehend”  (Jenkyns  i.  227). 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


107 


upon  the  Eucharist.  They  had  mistaken  their  man. 
Cranmer’ s  orthodoxy  on  the  great  subject,  and  Cranmer’ s 
sense  of  English  independence,  were  alike  affronted. 
He  told  the  ambassadors  that  Atkinson  should  do  his 
penance  at  St.  Paul’s  and  nowhere  else.  It  was  in  vain 
that  they  pleaded  that  a  condemned  Saxon’s  life  had 
been  spared  at  the  instance  of  Bishop  Foxe,  when  he  was 
in  Germany.  That  error  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar 
was  so  greatly  spread  in  the  realm,  the  Archbishop 
answered,  and  daily  increasing  more  and  more,  that 
it  was  needful  for  the  penance  to  be  performed  where 
the  most  people  might  be  present,  and  thereby,  in  seeing 
him  punished,  to  beware  of  the  like  offence.1 

It  was  not  a  hopeful  episode  at  the  beginning  of  an 
attempt  at  doctrinal  agreement  ;  yet  the  sanguine 
Archbishop  went  forward.  The  committee  appointed  to 
confer  with  the  Germans,  of  which  he  was  one,  discussed 
with  them  patiently  The  greater  part  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  drafted  a  revised  form  of  some  of  its 
Articles  which  seemed  likely  to  be  acceptable  to  both 
sides ;  but  after  that  they  diverged.2  The  German 
“  orators  ”  wished  to  proceed  to  the  remaining  Articles 
of  Augsburg,  which  treated  of  the  Mass,  Communion  in 
one  kind,  Confession,  the  priestly  celibate,  and  the 
like,  under  the  head  of  abuses.  Cranmer  was  willing 
to  be  guided  by  their  preference.  But  the  other  com¬ 
missioners  thought  differently.  The  King  himself,  they 
said,  was  writing  upon  the  alleged  abuses,  and  they 
would  not  risk  a  difference  from  him.  They  demanded 
a  discussion  of  Matrimony,  Orders,  Confirmation,  and 
Extreme  Unction,  which  found  no  place  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  in  which,  as  Cranmer  affirms,  “  they 
1  Jenkyns  i.  249.  2  See  Ibid,  iv,  273, 


108 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


know  certainly  that  the  Germans  will  not  agree  with 
us.”  Upon  this  shoal  the  negotiations  were  wrecked. 
Evidently  the  King  was  not  pleased  with  the  Germans, 
who  seemed  to  suppose  that  they  had  come  to  teach,  not 
to  learn.  If  Cranmer  was  not  misinformed,  they  were 
even  treated  with  scanty  courtesy.  They  were  kept 
waiting  month  after  month,  in  hopes  of  some  final 
decision  by  the  King.  The  princes  who  sent  them 
began  to  chafe  at  the  expense  to  which  they  were  put. 
Lambeth  was  not  in  condition  to  receive  them  as  guests, 
and  the  house  assigned  to  them  by  Cromwell  was  far 
from  agreeable.  “  Besides  the  multitude  of  rats,”  says 
Cranmer,  “  daily  and  nightly  running  in  their  chambers, 
which  is  no  small  disquietness,  the  kitchen  standeth 
directly  against  their  parlour  where  they  daily  dine  and 
sup ;  and  by  reason  thereof  the  house  savoureth  so  ill, 
that  it  offendeth  all  men  that  come  into  it.”1  The  orators 
took  their  departure  ;  and  though  Burckhardt  returned 
next  year  in  a  more  open  frame  of  mind,  the  scheme 
for  corporate  union  never  revived  in  the  days  of  Henry. 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  whose  wish  was  often  father  to 
his  thought,  had  long  persuaded  himself  that  the  King, 
as  well  as  Cromwell,  was  altogether  on  his  side  in 
matters  of  religion.  Soon  after  the  departure  of  the 
German  “orators”  in  1538,  a  lively  correspondence  broke 
forth  between  him  and  a  Justice  and  Privy  Councillor 
in  his  diocese,  who  claimed  the  “  Bishops’  Book  ”  as  an 
indication  that  Henry  “  allowed  all  the  old  fashions,  and 
put  all  the  knaves  of  the  new  learning  to  silence.” 
Acting  upon  this  opinion,  the  Councillor  had  en¬ 
deavoured  to  stop  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and  at 
sessions  molested  the  favourers  of  the  Gospel.  Cranmer 

1  Jenkyns  i.  264. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


109 


warned  him  that  if  he  did  not  change  his  ways,  he 
should  be  constrained  to  complain  of  him  to  the  King, 
“  which  (he  says)  I  were  very  loth  to  do,  and  it  is 
contrary  to  my  mind  and  usage  hitherto.”  Men  like 
this  Justice  were  so  blinded,  Cranmer  said,  that  they 
called  the  old  new,  and  the  new  old.  “  In  very  deed,” 
he  wrote,  “  the  people  be  restored  by  this  book  to  their 
good  old  usages,  although  they  he  not  restored  to  their 
late  abused  usages.  The  old  usage  was  in  the  primitive 
Church,  and  nigh  thereunto  when  the  Church  was  most 
purest.  If  men  will  indifferently  read  these  late  declar¬ 
ations,  they  shall  well  perceive,  that  purgatory, 
pilgrimages,  praying  to  saints,  images,  holy  bread,  holy 
water,  holy  days,  merits,  works,  ceremonies,  and  such 
other,  be  not  restored  to  their  late  accustomed  abuses, 
but  shall  evidently  perceive  that  the  word  of  God  hath 
gotten  the  upper  hand  of  them  all,  and  hath  set  them 
in  their  right  use  and  estimation.”  If  it  were  not  for 
the  favour  that  he  bore  him,  the  Archbishop  said  that 
he  would  call  the  Justice’s  servants  before  him  as 
heretics,  for  all  their  brag.1 

He  was  soon  to  receive  a  painful  surprise  with 
regard  to  the  King’s  attitude.  Personally  attached  as 
the  King  was  to  Cranmer,  he  was  by  no  means  so  much 
in  love  as  Cranmer  thought  with  reforming  schemes. 
Ann  Boleyn  was  gone.  Cromwell,  though  still  in 
favour,  was  no  longer  so  necessary  to  the  King.  In 
June  1540,  the  “Whip  with  Six  Strings”  descended 
upon  the  shoulders  of  those  who,  in  the  main,  looked 
to  Cranmer  as  their  leader. 

It  is  strange  that  the  Six  Articles  should  have  been 
considered  to  denote  a  great  reactionary  change  in 

1  Jenkyns  i.  206  foil. 


110 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Henry  s  mind.1  There  is  little  in  the  doctrine  which 
is  not  covered .  by  the  Ten  Articles,  or  the  “  Bishops’ 
Book,”  or  previous  Injunctions.  They  do  indeed  add 
lansubstantiation  to  the  Real  Presence,  and  affirm 
that  communion  in  both  kinds  is  unnecessary,  and  that 
pi  ivate  masses  ought  to  be  continued  ;  but  these  points 
were  not  denied  in  the  earlier  formularies.  The  need 
of  auncular  confession  was  more  strongly  inculcated  in 
the  Bishops’  Book  ”  than  in  the  Six  Articles.  In  one 
respect  only  might  men  who  watched  Henry  carefully 
ieel  a  legitimate  surprise  at  his  new  Act.  When  almost 
the  last  conventual  establishments  were  closing  it  was 
announced  that  vows  of  chastity,  advisedly  taken,  were 
for  ever  binding.  Otherwise,  the  Articles  gave  expres¬ 
sion  to  Henry’s  consistent  orthodoxy.  But  to  those 
who  interpreted  Henry  by  what  he  had  more  or  less 
tacitly  allowed,  the  Articles  were  a  terrible  shock. 
These  Six  new  Articles  of  our  Faith,”  says  a  contem¬ 
porary,  were  “  as  well  agreeing  with  the  word  of  God 
and  the  former  book  of  religion,  called  the  'Bishops’ 

S*;  Watei’  Hghfc  With  darkness,  and 

Cranmer,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Parliament  which 
p_assed  these  Articles,  had  been  put  on  a  small  com¬ 
mittee  of  divines  who  were  to  draw  up  a  new  declara- 
lon  o  nghcan  belief.  Before,  however,  they  could 
arrive  at  any  result,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  was  sent  by 
the  Kmg  into  the  House  of  Lords  with  the  draft  of 
ie  ix  rticles,  and  a  bill  to  enforce  them  by  fearful 

o/a?LTnyrUS  /“  Life  and  Death  of  Cranmer  ”  in  Narratives 

Inmefteirbto^lTeS08^6  Ch“«e  *  “ol 

a  prey  to  the  King.  *  cne  raonastenes  from  falling 

Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  224. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  111 

penalties.  Against  this  bill,  Cranmer  contended, 
according  to  his  secretary’s  account,  “most  danger¬ 
ously.”  1  On  three  consecutive  days,  it  is  said,  with 
the  aid  of  the  other  reforming  bishops,  he  maintained 
his  ground.  At  last,  Henry  himself  came  down  to  the 
House  to  take  the  side  against  him.  So  powerful  was 
Cranmer’s  opposition,  that  the  King  sent  word  to  him 
to  withdraw  from  the  House  of  Lords,  which  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  respectfully  declined  to  do.  When  the  Act  was 
passed,  the  King,  who  was  capable  of  admiring  a  skilful 
argument,  even  when  it  was  against  himself,  begged 
Cranmer  to  send  him  a  copy  of  his  speeches.  By  the 
Act  itself,  it  had  been  made  heresy,  punishable  at 
common  law,  to  speak  against  the  first  of  the  Articles, 
and  felony  to  speak  against  the  rest.  To  commit  his 
arguments  to  paper  was  therefore  to  run  a  good  deal 
of  risk;  and  an  exciting  adventure  befell  the  book. 
Morice,  the  secretary,  who  wrote  it  out,  was  obliged 
one  day  to  go  over  from  Lambeth  to  London,  and,  for 
better  safe-keeping,  took  the  book  with  him.  A  bear- 
baiting  was  taking  place  at  the  time  in  a  boat  on  the 
river.  The  bear  broke  loose,  capsized  Morice’s  wherry, 
plunged  Morice  into  the  Thames,  and  sent  the  book 
floating  down  the  tide.  It  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
bearward,  who  was  a  zealous  Papist.  When  he  found 
whose  and  what  it  was,  the  bearward  thought  he  had 
found  his  opportunity  against  the  heretical  Archbishop. 
“  You  be  like,  I  trust,”  he  told  the  secretary,  “  to  be 
both  hanged  for  this  book.”  Refusing  to  give  it  up  for 
money,  he  carried  it  to  the  council-chamber,  and  only 
the  fortunate  interference  of  Cromwell  prevented  the 
man  from  bringing  the  matter  to  an  issue.2 

1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  248.  2  Foxe  v.  388. 


112 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Henry’s  request  for  Cranmer’s  arguments  had  been 
conveyed  by  Cromwell  and  Norfolk,  whom,  after  the 
passing  of  the  Six  Articles  Bill,  the  King  had  sent  to 
dine  at  Lambeth  with  the  Archbishop,  and  to  assure 
him  that  the  King  had  not  taken  his  outspokenness 
amiss.  Henry  knew  well  that  Cranmer  stood  in  need 
of  consolation.  He  had  not  only  suffered  the  defeat  of 
principles  which  were  dear  to  him.  The  Six  Articles 
had  touched  him  in  a  very  tender  spot.  They  had  put 
an  end  to  his  married  life. 

It  ought,  perhaps,  to  have  been  no  great  surprise  to 
Cianmer  that  the  law  should  be  made  more  stringent 
against  the  marriage  of  the  clergy.  No  permission  of 
such  marriages  had  at  any  time  been  given ;  and  in 
lobS  a  loyal  proclamation  had  been  issued  for  depriving 
any  priests  who  were  known  to  be  married,  and  forbid¬ 
ding  them  to  “  minister  any  sacrament  or  other  ministry 
mystical.  1  Notwithstanding  this,  an  impression  had 
been  somehow  created,  that  the  King  intended  to 
allow  priests  to  marry.2  Perhaps  Strype  is  right  in 
thinking  that  the  very  wording  of  the  prohibition — 
marriages  that  be  openly  known  ” — was  taken  to 
mean  that  marriages  which  were  kept  quiet  would  be 
unmolested.  It  came,  therefore,  as  a  thunderbolt  to 
Cranmer  and  many  others,  when  the  third  of  the  new 
Articles  affirmed  that  God’s  law  forbade  the  marriage 
of  priests,  whether  before  or  after  receiving  that  sacred 
order ;  and  the  Act  declared  such  marriages  void,  and 
made  them,  if  persisted  in,  a  capital  offence. 

Cranmer  s  wife  had,  no  doubt, been  always  kept  in  strict 
retirement.  The  scoffing  Papists  of  Queen  Mary’s  time 

1  Wilkins  iii.  696,  where  the  date  is  wrongly  given. 

2  Strype’s  Cranmer  i.  154. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY  113 

f  made  merry  over  the  shifts  to  which,  in  their  imagina¬ 
tion,  the  Archbishop  had  been  put  to  hide  her.  All  sorts 
of  ludicrous  situations  were  invented.  He  was  said  to 
have  carried  her  about  “  in  a  great  chest  full  of  holes, 
that  his  pretty  Nobsey  might  take  breath  at.”  1  Now, 
however,  even  this  precarious  felicity  could  be  enjoyed 
no  more.  Osiander’s  niece  w~as  shipped  off  to  her 
friends  in  Germany,  and  the  Archbishop  had  to  work 
on  as  best  he  could  without  her.  When  his  troubles 
with  the  Canons  of  Canterbury  began,  some  three  years 
after,  the  King,  u  putting  on  an  air  of  pleasantry,  asked 
him  whether  his  bedchamber  could  stand  the  test  of 
the  Articles.”  Cranmer’s  straightforward  answer  pleased 
Henry.  The  King  told  him  that  the  severity  of  the 
Act  had  not  been  levelled  at  him,  and  renewed  his 
promises  of  favour.2 

On  one  point,  indeed,  the  King  had  taken  the  Arch¬ 
bishop’s  part  in  the  debate  on  the  Six  Articles.  So 
clearly  had  Cranmer  shown  that  auricular  confession  to 
a  priest  (which  Cranmer  valued  and  used)  was  not 
made  compulsory  on  all  men  in  Scripture,  that  when 
Bishop  Tunstall  sent  in  to  the  King  afterwards  a 
re-statement  of  his  opinion  to  the  contrary,  Henry 
replied  that  he  wondered  at  him.  It  had  been  proved, 
he  said,  both  by  the  Bishop  of  Canterbury  and  himself, 
that  the  texts  which  Tunstall  quoted  “  made  smally  or 
nothing  to  his  purpose.”  3 

Within  a  year  of  the  passing  of  the  Six  Articles 
Cromwell  fell,  accused  of  heresy,  as  well  as  of  treason. 

1  Harpsfielcl’s  Pretended  Divorce  of  Ilenry  VIII.  p.  275.  Cp. 
Bishop  Cranmer’s  Recantacyons  p.  8. 

2  Collier  v.  127. 

3  Todd  i.  276,  from  Burnet. 


114 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


At  the  moment  when  Cranmer  wrote  to  the  Kino*  in 

O 

his  defence,  the  Archbishop  himself  was  in  the  thick 
of  an  unequal  conflict  on  behalf  of  the  very  principles 
which  helped  to  ruin  the  Vicegerent.  A  commission  had 
again  been  appointed  for  formulating  afresh  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church.  “At  that  season/’  says  his 
secretary,  “  the  whole  rabblement  which  he  took  to  be 
his  friends,  being  commissioners  with  him,  forsook  him 
and  his  opinion  in  doctrine,  and  so,  leaving  him  post 
alone,  revolted  altogether.”  Gardiner  was,  of  course, 
the  leader  of  the  opposition;  but  he  was  joined  by 
Heath,  who  had  won  the  testimonial  of  Melanchthon, 
by  Hay  of  Chichester,  and  others  who  owed  their 
advancement  to  Cranmer.  Heath,  and  Skip,  Bishop  of 
Hereford,  as  familiar  friends  of  the  Archbishop,  took 
him  down  into  the  garden  at  Lambeth,  and  urged  him 
to  adopt  a  form  of  words  which  they  thought  more 
likely  to  find  acceptance  with  the  King  than  that  which 
Cranmer  pressed  upon  the  committee.  Cranmer  bade 
them  beware  what  they  did.  He  told  them  that  he 
knew  the  King’s  nature.  The  truth  would  one  day 
come  out  about  these  articles;  and  then  the  Kin£ 
would  never  again  trust  those  who  had  in  false  prudence 
concealed  it  from  him.1  Cranmer  was  right.  While 
heavy  odds  were  being  laid  by  betting  men  in  London 
that  Cranmer,  before  Convocation  broke  up,  would 
be  set  in  the  Tower  beside  his  friend,  Cromwell, 
“  Hod  gave  him  such  favour  with  his  Prince,  that  the 
book  altogether  passed,  by  his  assertion,  against  all 
their  minds.”  Henry’s  suspicions  were  aroused  by  the 
change  of  mind  which  he  saw  in  others  of  the  com- 


1  Foxe  viii.  24. 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


115 


missioners ;  his  regard  for  Cranmer’s  constancy  “  drave 
him  all  alone  to  join  ”  with  him.1 

This  book,  which  the  Archbishop  carried  through,  was 
no  other  than  the  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  of 
a  Christian  Man ,  commonly  called  the  “  King’s  Book,” 
to  distinguish  it  from  the  “Bishops’  Book.”  Most 
writers,  considering  the  time  at  which  it  appeared  to  be 
a  time  of  reaction,  have  been  compelled  to  find  in  the 
“  King’s  Book  ”  a  marked  contrast  to  the  doctrine  of  its 
predecessor.  Morice’s  account  of  the  circumstances  of 
its  birth  puts  a  different  construction  upon  the  matter. 
So  far  from  suggesting  that  the  Necessary  Erudition  was 
the  work  of  a  retrograde  party,  authorised  in  spite  of 
Cranmer’s  opposition,  it  shows  that  that  book  in  the 
main  represents  the  triumph  of  Cranmer,  at  a  moment 
when  he  seemed  most  unlikely  to  succeed.2 

1  Morice  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  248. 

2  The  employment  to  which  Foxe  has  put  a  part  of  Morice’s 
graphic  language  has  misled  many  subsequent  writers.  Foxe 
makes  Cranmer  to  oppose  the  Six  Articles  “post  alone.” 
Morice,  when  he  used  that  phrase,  used  it  of  Cranmer’s  position, 
not  at  the  time  of  the  Six  Articles,  but  at  the  time  of  Cromwell’s 
fall.  Foxe  uses  it  of  an  occasion  when  Cranmer  was  beaten ; 
Morice  of  an  occasion  when  Cranmer  won.  The  Six  Articles 
passed  in  1539,  a  year  before  Cromwell  fell.  The  only  “  book  of 
articles  of  our  religion”  that  we  know  of,  which  was  under  dis¬ 
cussion  when  Cromwell  fell,  was  that  which  appeared  in  1543 
under  the  name  of  the  Necessary  Erudition.  It  is  true  that  some 
slight  detraction  from  Morice’s  authority  at  this  point  must  be 
admitted,  because  of  the  evident  signs  that  the  old  man’s  memory 
was  here  at  fault  in  certain  details.  He  mentions  Thirlby  (in 
the  MS.)  as  one  of  those  who  deserted  Cranmer,  and  then  erases 
the  name.  He  mentions  Shaxton  also,  and  leaves  the  name 
standing,  although  Shaxton  had  been  forced  to  resign  his  see  a 
year  before.  But  Morice  can  hardly  have  been  mistaken  as  to 
his  main  facts — that  the  book  which  then  was  carried  was  practi¬ 
cally  Cranmer’s  and  that  the  other  party  were  desirous  of  carrying 
something  very  different.  No  record  remains  of  the  alternative 
document  which  they  favoured. 


116 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Nor,  indeed,  should  any  one  be  surprised  that  the 
Necessary  Erudition,  broadly  speaking,  represents 
Cranmer’s  views  at  the  time  of  its  composition.  There 
are  but  few  portions  of  it  which  are  not  taken  from  the 
earlier  work,  by  a  careful  weaving  together  of  material 
which  in  the  earlier  work  was  scattered  and  ill-arranged. 
There  are,  no  doubt,  passages  in  the  new  book  which 
have  the  appearance  of  being  due  to  Bishop  Gardiner — 
as  where  the  meaning  of  Latin  words  like  Dominus,  and 
ftdclis,  and  ecclesia,  and  sanctorum,  is  discussed.  Doubt¬ 
less  there  are  expressions  which  Cranmer  must  have 
deprecated,  but  the  doctrine  is  not  much  changed. 
Transubstantiation  is  added  to  the  Real  Presence ;  but 
in  mildly  expressed  terms,  and  Cranmer’s  objection  to 
the  doctrine  had  not  yet  formulated  itself  as  it  did  a  few 
years  later.  The  Invocation  of  Saints  is  somewhat  more 
encouraged  than  before ;  but  it  is  carefully  explained 
that  their  intercession  is  not  efficacious  except  through 
the  mediation  of  Christ,  who  is  “  the  only  eternal  Priest 
and  Bishop  of  His  Church.”  In  only  one  respect  is 
Cranmer’s  private  opinion  markedly  crossed.  The  new 
book  maintains  that  priests  ought  not  to  marry;  but 
Cranmer  had  already  bowed  to  the  Six  Articles,  when  he 
found  opposition  unavailing.  For  the  rest,  the  Neces¬ 
sary  Erudition  is  avowedly  a  reforming  work.  It  looks 
back  with  satisfaction  upon  what  has  been  accomplished 
in  that  direction,  although  it  admits  that  there  has  been 
evil  mixed  with  the  good.  The  condemnation  of  Rome 
is  more  emphatic  than  ever.  The  new  sections  on 
Faith,  on  Free  Will,  on  Justification,  on  Good  Works, 
are  all  written  from  the  standpoint  of  one  who  sym¬ 
pathises  with  the  lately  recovered  ideas  upon  those 
subjects,  though  soberly  criticising  the  rash  modes  in 


THE  REFORMATION  UNDER  HENRY 


117 


which  they  had  been  promulgated.  On  Penance,  the 
book  speaks  in  accordance  with  the  views  in  which 
Cranmer  and  Henry  were  agreed.  “  The  Sacrament  of 
Penance  ”  is  boldly  declared  to  be  “  properly  the  Absolu¬ 
tion  pronounced  by  the  priest,”  to  the  obtaining  of 
which  contrition,  confession,  and  satisfaction  (usually 
considered  to  be  the  very  elements  of  the  sacrament) 
“  be  required  as  ways  and  means  expedient  and  neces¬ 
sary.”  It  would  be  very  easy  to  imagine  a  presentment 
of  Christian  doctrine  more  reactionary  than  that  which 
is  commonly  supposed  to  prove  the  revival  of  the  party 
of  the  Old  Learning.  The  “  King’s  Book  ”  may  be 
taken  to  express  fairly  the  English  Reformation  move¬ 
ment  as  guided  by  Cranmer  under  Henry  VIII.1 

The  mutual  attachment  between  the  two  men  lasted 
to  the  end.  When  Henry  knew  himself  to  be  dying,  he 
refused  to  see  any  divine  except  the  Archbishop,  for 
whom  he  sent  in  haste,  but  his  power  of  speech  was 
gone  before  the  Archbishop  arrived.  “  As  soon  as  he 
came,  the  King  stretched  out  his  hand  to  him.  The 
Archbishop  exhorted  him  to  place  all  his  hope  in  the 
mercy  of  God  through  Christ,  beseeching  him  earnestly 
that  if  he  could  not  testify  this  hope  in  words,  he 
would  do  so  by  a  sign.  Then  the  King  wrung  the 

1  Although  the  Necessary  Erudition  must  be  considered  to 
represent  (with  some  deductions)  the  teaching  of  Cranmer,  there 
is  more  reason  for  discerning  a  triumph  of  the  Old  Learning  in 
the  Rationale,  an  explanation  of  the  Church  services,  which  was 
drawn  up  at  the  same  time.  Who  drew  it  up  is  quite  uncertain ; 
and  I  cannot  think  it  likely  to  have  been  the  work  of  the  Com¬ 
mission  on  Ceremonies  appointed  by  Cromwell  in  1540  (see  the 
list  in  Dixon  ii.  234).  But  it  commended  ceremonies  which 
Cranmer  did  not  love  ;  and  it  may  very  probably  be  a  proof  of 
Cranmer’s  influence  (as  Strype  affirms)  that  the  Rationale  was  not 
adopted  by  the  Church,  as  his  Necessary  Erudition  was. 


118 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Archbishop’s  hand,  which  he  held  in  his  own,  as  hard 
as  his  failing  strength  would  allow,  and,  directly  after, 
breathed  his  last.”  1 

The  Archbishop’s  mourning  for  his  master  was  deep 
and  lasting,  and  he  chose  to  wear  the  signs  of  it  to  his 
dying  day.  The  fine  portrait  of  him  in  the  National 
Portrait  Gallery,  by  an  otherwise  unknown  painter — 
Gerbic  a  Flicciis — was  taken  the  year  before  Henry’s 
death.  It  represents  a  large,  clean-shaven  man  of  fifty- 
seven  years  of  age,  sitting  very  upright  in  his  chair. 
He  does  not  look  like  a  man  of  weak  character,  though 
the  full  and  falling  mouth  might  perhaps  indicate  some 
slowness  of  temperament.  The  brows  are  well-defined 
and  slightly  contracted,  and  the  “  purblind  ”  eyes  look 
inquiringly  out  from  under  them.  In  his  hands  are 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  while  on  the  table  lies  a  book 
on  Faith  and  Works.  A  later  portrait  would  have 
represented  him  with  a  grey  beard ;  for  it  is  said  that 
he  never  shaved  his  beard  after  the  death  of  Henry,  as 
a  token  of  sorrow  for  his  loss. 


1  Godwin  Rerum  Ancjl.  Anncdes  p.  154  (ed.  1628). 


CHAPTER  IV 

CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 

Things  changed  rapidly  after  the  death  of  Henry. 
Although  the  Archbishop  had  been  put  at  the  head  of 
the  Council  of  Regency  by  the  will  of  the  deceased 
King,  the  supreme  power  passed  at  once  into  the  hands 
of  the  young  Edward’s  uncle,  best  known  as  the  Pro¬ 
tector  Somerset.  It  suited  Somerset  and  his  supporters 
to  patronise  the  new  ideas  of  religion,  which  promised 
to  divert  Church  property  to  a  most  liberal  extent  for 
the  use  of  lay  lords.  Before  the  year  1547  was  out,  a 
bill  was  passed  in  Parliament  for  granting  to  the  King 
all  chantries,  colleges,  and  free  chapels  which  had  not 
already  been  dissolved.  For  some  reason  it  was  not  till 
1552  that  the  chantries  were  actually  sold,  by  which 
time  Somerset  had  fallen,  and  Northumberland  had 
taken  his  place.  Cranmer,  who  had  formerly  been 
distressed  over  the  waste  of  the  monastic  property, 
strenuously  opposed  the  meddling  with  the  chantries. 
“He  offered,”  says  Morice,  “to  combat  with  the  Duke 
of  Northumberland,  speaking  on  the  behalf  of  his 
prince  for  the  staying  of  the  chantries  until  his  Highness 
had  come  unto  lawful  age.”  1  It  was  his  own  desire,  as 
it  must  have  been  the  desire  of  many,  to  maintain  the 

1  Narratives  p.  247. 

119 


120 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


position  of  things  which  Henry  had  bequeathed,  in 
other  matters  besides  this  of  the  chantries.  Near  the 
beginning  of  Edward’s  reign,  he  told  Morice  of  the  way 
in  which  Bishop  Gardiner  had  hindered  some  reforms 
which  he  had  nearly  persuaded  Henry  to  adopt;  and 
when  the  secretary  observed  that  he  could  now  proceed 
with  those  reforms  without  obstruction,  “  Not  so,”  the 
Archbishop  replied;  “it  was  better  to  attempt  such 
reformation  in  King  Henry  VII I/s  days,  than  at  this 
time,  the  King  being  in  his  infancy.”  1 

But  when  it  was  determined  by  the  dominant  faction 
that  the  revolution  was  to  go  forward,  Cranmer  took  up 
the  cause  and  championed  it.  He  did  so  not  only 
because  he  was  personally  in  favour  of  reform,  but 
also  in  accordance  with  his  consistent  habit  of  deference 
to  State  authorities.  Although  the  word  is  an  un¬ 
pleasant  word  to  use  of  him,  he  was  a  thorough  Erastian. 
It  was  a  not  uncommon  nor  strange  position  to  adopt 
at  that  point  in  history.  The  English  Church  in  past 
days  had  for  a  long  while  been  accustomed  to  receive 
guidance  and  support  from  the  Papacy ;  and  when  the 
Papacy  could  no  longer  be  looked  to,  the  royal  power 
naturally  took  its  place.  Men  like  Tyndale,  with 
whom  Cranmer  was  in  much  sympathy,  were  ready  to 
pay  an  extravagant  deference  to  “the  Prince.”  The 
Bible,  which  contained  not  a  word  about  the  Pope,  had 
a  great  deal  to  say  about  the  God-given  authority  of 
the  King.  To  the  King — especially  the  King  of 
England — God  had  committed  the  responsibility  of 
determining  what  was  best  for  his  subjects,  in  matters 
of  religion,  no  less  than  in  matters  of  ordinary  policy. 
It  was  not  that  Cranmer  held  a  low  view  of  religion  and 

1  Foxe  v.  563. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


121 


of  its  sanctions ;  it  was  that  he  held  a  high,  an  un¬ 
warrantably  high,  view  of  the  State.  The  State,  and 
the  Head  of  the  State,  were  to  him  so  spiritual,  so 
Divine,  that  ministers  of  religion,  like  himself,  within 
the  State,  were  bound,  when  it  was  not  positively 
against  their  conscience,  to  submit  their  judgments  to 
those  who  wielded  the  executive,  and  to  carry  out  what 
was  appointed  them.  The  first  thing  which  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  did  on  the  accession  of  Edward  was  to  take  out  a 
new  license  to  exercise  his  archiepiscopal  office;  and  so 
did  Gardiner,  Bonner,  Tunstall,  and  the  rest.  He 
persisted  in  acting  upon  the  same  theory  to  the  end, 
even  when  it  cost  him  everything. 

Bishop  Gardiner  was  also  an  Erastian,  but  not  so 
consistent  an  Erastian.  Although,  as  Cranmer  reminded 
him,  he  had  once  said  that  the  King  was  as  much  King 
at  one  year  old  as  at  one  hundred,  as  soon  as  he  found 
that  the  platform  of  Henry  VIII.  was  to  be  abandoned, 
he  threw  himself  strenuously  into  opposition.  When 
the  Archbishop  wrote  to  him  to  enlist  his  co-operation 
in  bringing  out  the  new  Booh  of  Homilies ,  which  had 
been  projected  but  not  accomplished  in  Henry’s  reign, 
Gardiner  utterly  refused.  The  Necessary  Erudition,  he 
said,  ought  to  be  maintained  as  the  standard  of  Christian 
teaching  in  the  realm.  To  this  Cranmer  replied,  in 
spite  of  the  hand  which  he  had  had  in  the  production 
of  that  book,  that  the  King  had  been  “  seduced  ”  into 
espousing  it,  and  that  Henry  “  knew  by  whom  he  was 
compassed.”  The  many  points  in  the  book  which 
represented  Cranmer’s  triumph,  shrank  under  Gardiner’s 
provocation  into  insignificance  beside  the  things  in  it 
which  Cranmer  disapproved.  Gardiner  retorted  that 
after  Cranmer  had  lived  for  four  years  in  agreement 


122 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


with  the  doctrine  of  the  hook,  it  was  “  a  very  strange 
speech  ”  to  say,  so  soon  after  King  Henry’s  death,  that 
his  Highness  was  seduced.  Not  long  after,  the  Bishop 
found  himself  in  prison,  and,  though  unjustly,  laid  his 
tribulations  to  the  charge  of  Cranmer.  The  Arch¬ 
bishop  was  sincerely  desirous  to  deliver  him,  and  sent 
for  him  one  day  to  the  Deanery  at  St.  Raul  s.  He 
spoke  to  him  in  defence  of  his  Homily  on  Justification, 
to  which  Gardiner  had  taken  exception,  hoping  after  all 
to  persuade  him  to  join  in  the  projected  Homilies. 
It  was  in  vain.  Gardiner  confessed  that  he  was  no 
match  for  Cranmer  in  the  argument.  “  He  overcame 
me,  that  am  called  the  Sophister,”  he  said,  “by 
sophistry )  ”  but  he  would  not  co-operate,  foi  all  that. 
Cranmer  was  vexed  with  him.  “You  like  nothing,  he 
said,  “unless  you  do  it  yourself.”  Nevertheless  he 
endeavoured  to  overcome  by  kind  offers  what  he  thought 
to  be  personal  obstinacy.  “  You  are,  he  said,  a  man 
meet  in  my  opinion  to  be  called  to  the  Council  again : 
we  daily  choose  and  add  others  that  were  not  appointed 
by  our  late  Sovereign  Lord.”  “  These,”  wrote  Gardiner 
to  Somerset,  “  were  worldly  comfortable  words,  but  he 
thanked  God  there  was  not  that  deceit  in  him,  which 
Cranmer  seemed  to  think.1  Such  disputes  threw  the 
Archbishop  all  the  more  into  the  arms  of  the  men  who 

reigned  in  the  King’s  name. 

Upon  another  doctrine  of  great  importance  Cran- 
mer’s  opinion  was  now  fast  diverging  from  that  of 
Gardiner.  It  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
No  doubt  there  were  abuses  in  connexion  with  that 
sacrament  which  at  any  time  of  his  life  he  would 
have  wished  to  see  rectified ;  and  in  all  probability  for 

1  Dixon  ii.  448,  from  Foxe. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI  123 

a  longer  period  than  lie  himself  was  aware,  he  had 
been  insensibly  modifying  his  own  conceptions  of  the 
mystery.  But  he  bad  been  content  to  use  the  current 
phraseology — and  more  than  that,  he  believed  himself 
to  be  wholly  on  the  side  of  the  teaching  which  then 
held  the  field.  Soon  after  his  accession  to  Canterbury, 
Frith  had  been  brought  before  him  (and  others)  to 
answer  for  his  doctrine  on  Purgatory  and  on  the 
Eucharist.  Frith,  though  he  had  his  own  opinion 
about  the  Eucharistic  Presence,  yet  did  not  maintain 
that  it  was  the  only  lawful  opinion ;  he  did  but  main¬ 
tain  that  neither  was  Transubstantiation  the  only  lawful 
opinion.  “  This  article  ”  he  wrote  from  prison,  “  is  no 
necessary  article  of  faith.  I  grant  that  neither  part  is 
an  article  necessary  to  be  believed  under  pain  of 
damnation,  but  leave  it  as  a  thing  indifferent,  to  think 
thereon  as  God  shall  instil  in  every  man’s  mind,  and  that 
neither  part  condemn  other  for  this  matter,  but  receive 
each  other  in  brotherly  love,  reserving  each  other’s 
infirmity  to  God.” 1  It  would  have  been  well  if,  in  the 
controversy  of  which  this  was  the  first  act,  the  spirit  of 
these  noble  words  could  have  been  preserved.  But 
Cranmer  thought  Frith  entirely  in  the  wrong;  and 
although  he  was  no  more  to  blame  for  his  execution 
than  others  were,  he  seems  to  have  concurred  fully  in 
the  judgment.  “  Other  news  have  we  none  notable,  he 
wrote  to  a  friend  abroad,  “  but  that  one  Frith,  which 
was  in  the  Tower  in  prison,  was  appointed  by  the 
King’s  Grace  to  be  examined  before  me  ’  and  others ; 
“  whose  opinion  was  so  notably  erroneous  that  we  could 
not  despatch  him,  but  was  fain  to  leave  him  to  the 
determination  of  his  ordinary,  which  is  the  Bishop  of 

1  Dixon  i.  1G8. 


124 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


London.  His  said  opinion  is  of  such  nature  that  he 
thought  it  not  necessary  to  be  believed  as  an  article  of 
our  faith  ” — Cranmer  notes  accurately  the  position  held 
by  Frith — “  that  there  is  the  very  corporal  presence  of 
Christ  within  the  host  and  sacrament  of  the  altar,  and 
holdeth  of  this  point  most  after  the  opinion  of  Oeco- 
lampadius.  And  surely  I  myself  sent  for  him  three  or 
four  times  to  persuade  him  to  leave  that  his  imagina¬ 
tion  ;  but  for  all  that  we  could  do  therein,  he  would  not 
apply  to  any  counsel.  Notwithstanding,  now  he  is  at 
a  final  end  with  examinations ;  for  my  Lord  of  London 
hath  given  sentence,  and  delivered  him  to  the  secular 
power,  where  he  iooketh  every  day  to  go  unto  the  fire.  ’ 1 
So  little  sympathy  had  the  Archbishop  at  that  date 
with  Oecolampadian  views. 

It  was  about  four  years  later,  that  he  wrote  a  Latin 
letter  to  Vadianus,  a  Swiss  opponent  of  the  real  Pre¬ 
sence,  in  terms  of  admiration  and  brotherliness  indeed, 
but  very  earnest  and  decided  upon  the  main  contention. 

“  Frankly  to  tell  you  my  mind  (as  good  men  ought  to 
do  with  one  another),  the  thesis  which  you  maintain  in 
those  six  books,  of  which  you  made  me  a  present,  is 
one  which  I  do  not  like  at  all,  and  I  wish  you  had 
spent  your  midnight  labour  to  better  purpose.  Unless 
plainer  proof  can  be  given  me  than  I  have  yet  seen, 
I  will  be  neither  a  patron  nor  an  abettor  of  your 
opinions.  I  have  seen  everything,  or  nearly  so,  that 
Oecolampadius  or  Zwinglius  have  written  and  published, 
and  I  have  learned  that  everything,  no  matter  by  what 
author,  must  be  read  with  a  critical  eye.  As  far  as  they 
have  endeavoured  to  point  out,  and  refute,  and  amend, 
papistical  and  sophistical  errors  and  abuses,  I  admire 

1  Jenkyns  i.  31. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI  125 

and  approve.  I  wish  they  had  stopped  at  those  limits, 
and  had  not  trampled  down  the  wheat  along  with  the 
tares.  I  do  not  think  any  fair  reader  will  be  convinced 
that  the  ancient  authors  are  on  your  side  in  this  con¬ 
troversy.  If  this  is  an  error,  it  is  one  commended  to  us 
by  the  Fathers  and  by  the  Apostolic  men  themselves;  and 
what  good  man  could  listen  to  such  a  statement,  not  to 
speak  of  believing  it?  No  words  can  express  how  this 
bloody  controversy  has  everywhere,  but  among  us  par¬ 
ticularly,  hindered  the  Gospel  word  which  was  running 
so  well.  With  your  leave  I  exhort  and  advise  you,  nay, 
I  pray  and  beseech,  and  in  the  bowels  of  Jesus  Christ 
obtest  and  adjure  you,  to  allow  to  the  Churches  that 
peace  of  God  which  passeth  all  understanding,  that  with 
united  forces  we  may  propagate  the  one  sound,  pure, 
evangelical  doctrine,  which  is  in  accordance  with  the 
discipline  of  the  primitive  Church.  We  shall  with  ease 
convert  even  the  Turks  to  the  obedience  of  our  Gospel, 
if  we  can  but  agree  among  ourselves.”  1 

It  was  believed  by  some  in  Cranmer’s  own  time,  and 
has  been  asserted  again  in  ours,  that  the  Archbishop 
passed  from  the  belief  in  Tran  substantiation  to  his 
later  doctrine,  through  a  phase  of  Lutheran  opinion  on 
the  subject.  “  You,  Mr.  Cranmer,”  said  Martin  to  him 
at  his  trial,  “  have  taught  in  this  high  sacrament  of  the 
altar  three  contrary  doctrines.”  “  Nay,”  he  answered  ; 
« I  taught  but  two  contrary  doctrines  in  the  same.” 2  F rom 
his  own  point  of  view  he  was  speaking  the  exact  truth. 
There  was  no  period  at  which  he  taught  a  definite  doc¬ 
trine  like  Luther’s,  opposed  to  the  Roman  on  the  one 
hand,  and  to  the  Swiss  one  on  the  other.  The  Lutheran 
dogma  of  Consubstantiation  is  a  highly  elaborated  dogma, 
1  Jenkyns  i.  193.  2  Ibid.  iv.  95. 


126 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


of  which  it  is  hardly  unfair  to  say  that  it  unites  the 
difficulties  of  both  the  other  theories  of  Cranmer’s  time 
without  the  advantages  of  either.  So  little  sympathy 
with  it  was  felt  in  England,  that  Ridley  affirmed  that 
the  Papists  and  he  were  more  nearly  agreed  together 
than  either  of  them  was  with  the  Lutherans ;  for  while 
both  he  and  the  Papists  affirmed  that  there  was  only 
one  substance  in  the  sacrament,  the  Lutherans  affirmed 
that  there  were  two.  This  theory  Cranmer  never  held. 
Although  in  the  first  year  of  Edward  YI.’s  reign  he 
published  a  translation  of  a  Catechism  on  the  subject 
by  an  avowed  Lutheran,  yet  that  Catechism  does  not 
give  expression  to  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  Consubstan- 
tiation. 

Yet  there  are  not  wanting  indications  that  there  was 
a  time  when  Archbishop  Cranmer  was  shaken  in  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  while  abhorring  the 
position  he  afterwards  came  to  occupy.  The  year  after 
his  letter  to  Yadianus  —  in  which  year  also  Lambert 
was  burned  for  holding  Zwinglian  opinions, — a  preacher 
named  Damplip  came  into  trouble  at  Calais  (which  was 
in  Canterbury  diocese)  for  his  Eucharistic  teaching. 
The  Archbishop  wrote  to  Cromwell  in  his  defence. 
“  He  utterly  denieth  that  he  ever  taught  or  said  that 
the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ  was  not  presently 
in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  and  confesseth  the  same 
to  be  there  really;  but  he  saith  that  the  controversy 
between  him  and  the  Prior  was,  because  he  confuted 
the  opinion  of  the  Transubstantiation ;  and  therein 
I  think  he  taught  but  the  truth.” 1  Cranmer  had 
evidently  begun  to  feel  that  it  was  possible  to  believe 
in  the  real  Presence  without  holding  Transubstan- 
1  Jenkyns,  i.  257  (August  15,  1538). 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI  127 

tiation  —  or  Consubstantiation  either.  It  was  the 
opinion  of  others  besides  himself.  Bishop  Tunstall 
held  the  same  view.  He  told  his  nephew,  Bernard 
Gilpin,  that  Innocent  III.  had  been  “  greatly  over¬ 
seen  ”  in  pressing  Transubstantiation  upon  the  Church.1 
Bedmayne,  the  first  Master  of  Trinity,  who  certainly 
never  rejected  the  real  Presence,  said  on  his  deathbed 
(1551),  that  he  had  studied  the  matter  for  twelve  years, 
and  found  that  some  of  the  Fathers  had  written  plainly 
contrary  to  Transubstantiation,  and  that  in  others  it  was 
not  taught  nor  maintained.2  “  I  confess  of  myself,” 
wrote  Cranmer  at  a  later  time,  “  that  not  long  before  I 
wrote  the  said  Catechism,  I  was  in  that  error  of  the  real 
Presence,  as  I  was  many  years  past  in  divers  other 
errors,  as  of  Transubstantiation  ” — which  shows  that  he 
clearly  distinguished  between  the  two  things — “  for  the 
which  and  other  mine  offences  in  youth  I  do  daily  pray 
unto  God  for  mercy  and  pardon,  saying,  Delicta  iuventutis 
meae  et  ignorantias  mcas  nc  memineris,  Domine 3 

From  that  lofty  ground  where  he  was  disposed  to 
take  his  stand,  believing  on  the  one  hand  the  real 
Presence  in  the  sacrament,  and  on  the  other  hand  re¬ 
jecting  the  mediaeval  fiction  of  Transubstantiation, 
Archbishop  Cranmer  was  dragged  down  by  Nicholas 
Ridley.  “  I  grant,”  he  said  at  the  end  of  his  life,  “  that 
then  (when  he  wrote  his  catechism)  I  believed  other¬ 
wise  than  I  do  now :  and  so  I  did  until  my  Lord  of 
London  did  confer  with  me,  and  by  sundry  persuasions 
and  authorities  of  doctors,  drew  me  quite  from  my 
opinion.” 4  The  new  opinion  which  he  embraced  was 
embodied  in  a  book  published  in  the  year  1550,  and 

1  Gilpin’s  Gilpin  170.  2  See  Foxe  vi.  267  foil. 

3  Jenkyns  iii.  13.  4  Ibid.  iv.  97. 


128 


THOMAS  CHANMER 


entitled,  “  A  Defence  of  the  true  and  Catholic  Doctrine 
of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour 
Christ,  with  a  confutation  of  sundry  errors  concerning 
the  same,  grounded  and  established  upon  God’s  Holy 
Word,  and  approved  by  the  consent  of  the  most 
ancient  Doctors  of  the  Church.”  It  was  not  difficult 
for  a  man  of  Cranmer’s  reading  and  acumen  to  expose 
the  absurdities  of  Transubstantiation,  and  of  the  Pro¬ 
pitiatory  Sacrifice,  as  then  popularly  understood.  No  one 
has  done  it  more  trenchantly.  This  part  of  his  work 
is  full  of  powerful  sentences  which  deserve  to  be 
remembered : — 

“  Although  all  the  accidents,  both  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  remain  still,  yet  (say  they)  the  same  accidents  be 
in  no  manner  of  thing.  For  in  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  (say  they)  these  accidents  cannot  be ;  for  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  be  neither  of  that  bigness, 
fashion,  smell,  nor  colour,  that  the  bread  and  wine  be. 
Nor  in  the  bread  and  wine  (say  they)  these  accidents 
cannot  be ;  for  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  (as 
they  affirm)  be  clean  gone.  And  so  there  remaineth 
whiteness,  but  nothing  is  white ;  there  remaineth 
roundness,  but  nothing  is  round ;  and  there  is  bigness, 
and  yet  nothing  is  big ;  there  is  sweetness,  without  any 
sweet  thing ;  softness,  without  any  soft  thing ;  breaking, 
without  anything  broken;  and  so  other  qualities  and 
quantities,  without  anything  to  receive  them.  And 
this  doctrine  they  teach  as  a  necessary  article  of  our 
faith.”  1  “  If  Christ  would  have  had  us  believe,  as  a 

necessary  article  of  our  faith,  that  there  remaineth 
neither  bread  nor  wine,  would  He  have  spoken  after  this 
sort,  using  all  such  terms  and  circumstances  as  should 

1  Jenkyns  ii.  309. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


129 


make  us  believe  that  still  there  remaineth  bread  and 
wine  ?  ”  1  “  Our  faith  teacheth  us  to  believe  things  that 
we  see  not ;  but  it  doth  not  bid  us  that  we  shall  not 
believe  that  we  see  daily  with  our  eyes.”  2  “  Let  all  these 
papists  together  show  any  one  authority,  either  of 
Scripture  or  of  ancient  author,  Greek  or  Latin,  that 
saith  as  they  say,  that  Christ  called  not  bread  and  wine 
His  body  and  blood,  but  individuum  vagum  (a  particular 
thing  uncertain),  and  for  my  part  I  shall  give  them 
place,  and  confess  that  they  say  true.”  3  In  the  “  doctrine 
of  the  old  Catholic  Church  ”  is  “  no  absurdity  nor  incon¬ 
venience,  nothing  spoken  either  contrary  to  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  or  to  natural  reason,  philosophy,  or  experience,  or 
against  any  old  ancient  author.”4  “No  man  (says 
Theodoret)  ought  to  be  so  arrogant  and  presumptuous 
to  affirm  for  a  certain  truth  in  religion  anything  which 
is  not  spoken  of  in  Holy  Scripture.  And  this  is 
spoken  to  the  great  and  utter  condemnation  of  the 
papists,  which  make  and  unmake  new  articles  of  our 
faith  from  time  to  time,  at  their  pleasure,  without  any 
Scripture  at  all.  And  yet  will  they  have  all  men  bound 
to  believe  whatsoever  they  invent,  upon  peril  of  dam¬ 
nation  and  everlasting  fire.”  5 

Cranmer  was  not,  however,  so  successful  in  his  con¬ 
structive  attempts,  as  in  his  criticism  of  the  views  of 
others.  The  doctrine  which  he  now  inculcated  was 
practically  indistinguishable  from  that  of  Oecolampadius 
It  is  true  that  he  will  not  allow  it  to  be  said  that  he 
makes  the  sacramental  emblems  mere  emblems.  “  The 
sacramental  bread  and  wine  be  not  bare  and  naked 


1  Jenkyns  ii.  316. 


3  Ibid.  376. 


2  Ibid.  318. 
4  Ibid.  353. 


s  Ibid.  395. 


Iv 


130 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


figures,  but  so  pithy  and  effectuous,  that  whosoever 
worthily  eateth  them  eateth  spiritually  Christ’s  flesh 
and  blood,  and  hath  by  them  everlasting  life.”1  But, 
nevertheless,  the  body  of  Christ  is  a  absent.  Cranmer 
does  not  hesitate  to  use  the  word.  “  The  eating  and 
drinking  of  Christ’s  flesh  and  blood  is  not  taken  in  the 
common  signification,  with  mouth  and  teeth  to  eat  and 
chew  a  thing  being  present,  but  by  a  lively  faith,  in 
heart  and  mind,  to  chew  and  digest  a  thing  being 
absent.”  2  “  It  is  a  figurative  speech,  spiritually  to  be 

understand,  that  we  must  deeply  print  and  fruitfully 
believe  in  our  hearts  that  His  flesh  was  crucified  and  His 
blood  shed  for  our  redemption.  And  this  our  belief  in 
Him  is  to  eat  His  flesh  and  to  drink  His  blood,  although 
they  be  not  present  here  with  us  but  be  ascended  into 
heaven.”  3  The  only  sense  in  which  Cranmer  will  allow 
that  Christ’s  body  is  present  with  us  at  the  Eucharist,  is 
that  in  which  the  sun  is  present  upon  the  earth,  by  its 
light  and  heat.4  It  is  only  a  virtual  presence,  and  that, 
not  in  the  sacrament,  but  in  the  worthy  receivers  of  the 
sacrament.  Christ  is  no  otherwise  present  with  us  in 
the  Eucharist  than  He  is  in  Baptism ; 5  and  the  bread  is 
only  called  His  body  in  the  same  way  that  any  other 
figure  bears  the  name  of  the  things  it  figures : — “  as 
a  man’s  image  is  called  a  man,”  he  writes,  “  a  lion  s 
image  a  lion,  and  an  image  of  a  tree  and  herb  is  called 
a  tree  or  herb.  So  were  we  wont  to  say,  Our  Lady 
of  Walsingham;  Great  St.  Christopher  of  York  or 
Lincoln ;  Our  Lady  smileth  or  rocketh  her  Child ;  and  a 
thousand  like  speeches,  which  were  not  understood  of 
the  very  things,  but  only  of  the  images  of  them.”  0 

1  Jenkyns  ii.  422.  2  Ibid.  378.  -  3  Ibid.  381. 

4  Ibid.  358.  6  Ibid.  412,  416.  6  Ibid.  440. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


131 


It  would  be  unfair  not  to  add  that  in  spite  of  this 
low  conception  of  the  Eucharistic  Presence,  there  are 
many  beautiful  passages  in  the  book,  showing  that 
Cranmer’ s  actual  devotion  to  the  Holy  Sacrament  was 
not  impaired.  The  language  of  Ignatius  and  Irenaeus, 
which  his  opponents  thought  to  be  on  their  side,  was 
not  too  glowing  for  Cranmer.  “  Neither  they,”  he 
says,  “  nor  no  man  else,  can  extol  and  commend  the  same 
sufficiently,  if  it  be  godly  used  as  it  ought  to  be.” 1 
Again  and  again  he  speaks  of  its  daily  use  as  if  it 
were  the  obvious  and  natural  thing.  Christ  ordained, 
he  says,  “  not  a  yearly  memory  (as  the  Paschal  lamb 
was  eaten  but  once  a  year),  but  a  daily  remembrance 
He  ordained  in  bread  and  wine  sanctified  and  dedicated 
to  that  purpose.” 2  Christ’s  sacrifice  “  is  figured, 
signified,  and  represented  unto  us  by  that  bread 
and  wine  which  faithful  people  receive  daily  in 
the  Holy  Communion.”3  The  reception  of  Christ, 
though  purely  spiritual,  was  not  the  less  real  or 
less  awful.  “  Although  He  sit  in  heaven,  at  His 
Father’s  right  hand,  yet  should  we  come  to  this 
mystical  bread  and  wine  with  faith,  reverence,  purity, 
and  fear,  as  we  would  do  if  we  should  come  to  see 
and  receive  Christ  Himself  sensibly  present.  For  unto 
the  faithful,  Christ  is  at  His  own  holy  table  present 
with  His  mighty  Spirit  and  grace,  and  is  of  them  more 
fruitfully  received,  than  if  corporally  they  should  re¬ 
ceive  Him  bodily  present.  And,  therefore,  they  that 
shall  worthily  come  to  this  God’s  board,  must  after  due 
trial  of  themselves  consider,  first,  who  ordained  this 
table,  also  what  meat  and  drink  they  shall  have  that 
come  thereto,  and  how  they  ought  to  behave  themselves 

1  Jenkyns  ii.  402.  2  Ibid.  398.  3  Ibid.  405, 


132 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


thereat.  He  that  prepared  the  table  is  Christ  Himself. 
The  meat  and  drink  wherewith  He  feedeth  them  that 
come  thereto  as  they  ought  to  do,  is  His  own  flesh  and 
blood.  They  that  come  thereto  must  occupy  their 
minds  in  considering  how  His  body  was  broken  for 
them,  and  His  blood  shed  for  their  redemption.  And  so 
ought  they  to  approach  to  this  heavenly  table  with  all 
humbleness  of  heart  and  godliness  of  mind,  as  to  the 
table  wherein  Christ  Himself  is  given.”  1 

It  is  a  genuine  spiritual  prompting  which  impels  the 
author,  who  is  jealous  “  lest  that  in  the  stead  of  Christ 
Himself  be  worshipped  the  sacrament.” 2  The  customary 
worship  was,  in  his  belief,  a  “  horrible  idolatry,  to  wor¬ 
ship  things  visible  and  made  with  their  own  hands,” 
when  people  adored  what  were,  on  their  own  theory, 
only  accidents  and  not  the  very  substance  itself.  “  Else,” 
he  says,  “  what  made  the  people  to  run  from  their  seats 
to  the  altar,  and  from  sacring  (as  they  called  it)  to 
sacring,  peeping,  tooting,  and  gazing  at  that  thing 
which  the  priest  held  up  in  his  hands,  if  they  thought 
not  to  honour  that  thing  which  they  saw  ?  What 
moved  the  priests  to  lift  up  the  sacrament  so  high 
over  their  heads  ?  or  the  people  to  cry  to  the  priest, 
‘  Hold  up,  hold  up  ’ !  and  one  man  to  say  to  another, 
‘  Stoop  down  before  ’ ;  or  to  say,  ‘  This  day  have  I  seen 
my  Maker  ’ ;  and,  ‘  I  cannot  be  quiet  except  I  see  my 
Maker  once  a  day  *  ?  If  they  worshipped  nothing  that 
they  saw,  why  did  they  rise  up  to  see  ?  ”  3  The  error 
of  Rome,  he  said,  lay  in  “  not  bringing  them  by  bread 
unto  Christ,  but  from  Christ  unto  bread.”  4 

It  was  no  innate  love  of  controversy  which  induced 


1  Jenkyns  ii.  438. 
3  Ibid.  442. 


2  Ibid.  441. 
4  Ibid.  446. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


133 


Cranmer  to  take  up  liis  pen  in  this  matter,  but  the 
solemn  sense  of  his  high  and  providential  office.  “  God 
I  take  to  witness,”  he  writes,  “  who  seeth  the  hearts  of 
all  men  throughly  to  the  bottom,  that  I  take  this  labour 
for  none  other  consideration,  but  for  the  glory  of  His 
name,  and  the  discharge  of  my  duty,  and  the  zeal  that 
I  bear  toward  the  flock  of  Christ.  I  know  in  what  office 
God  hath  placed  me,  and  to  what  purpose ;  that  is  to 
say,  to  set  forth  His  word  truly  unto  His  people,  to  the 
uttermost  of  my  power.  I  know  what  account  I  shall 
make  to  Him  hereof  at  the  last  day,  when  every  man 
shall  answer  for  his  vocation,  and  receive  for  the  same 
good  or  ill,  according  as  he  hath  done.  It  pitieth  me 
to  see  the  simple  and  hungry  flock  of  Christ  led  into 
corrupt  pastures,  to  be  carried  blindfold  they  know  not 
whither,  and  to  be  fed  with  poison  in  the  stead  of 
wholesome  meats.” 1 

This  work  of  Archbishop  Cranmer’s  was  originally 
called  forth  by  a  treatise  of  Bishop  Gardiners,  entitled 
A  Detection  of  the  Devil' s  Sophistry ;  and  it  called  forth 
in  turn  a  reply  from  Gardiner,  to  which  Cranmer  an¬ 
swered  once  more,  sentence  by  sentence,  from  beginning 
to  end.  Gardiner  was  not  a  profound  or  well-read  divine; 
and  he  approached  the  subject  from  the  point  of  view 
of  a  man  of  common  sense,  who  accepts  the  traditional 
opinion  in  a  broad  way,  without  caring  to  go  into  the 
niceties  of  it.  The  consequence  is  that  the  Archbishop 
has  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  there  are  grave  and 
frequent  differences  between  the  Bishop  and  the  autho¬ 
rities  whom  he  supposed  himself  to  follow. 

“  There  was  never  man  of  learning  that  I  have  read,” 
says  the  common-sense  Gardiner,  “termed  the  matter 

1  J enkyns  ii.  289. 


134 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


so,  tliat  Christ  goetli  into  the  stomach  of  the  man  that 
receiveth,  and  no  further.”  “  It  is  marvel,”  replies  the 
Archbishop,  “  that  you  never  read  [this],  being  a  lawyer, 
and  seeing  that  it  is  written  in  the  Gloss  of  the  law 
De  Consecr.  dist.  ii.  Tribus  Gmdibus  in  these  words — 

‘  It  is  certain  that  as  soon  as  the  forms  be  torn  with 
the  teeth,  so  soon  the  body  of  Christ  is  gone  up  into 
heaven/  And  if  you  had  read  Thomas  de  Aquino  and 
Bonaventure  (great  clerks  and  holy  saints  of  the  Pope’s 
own  making)  with  other  school  authors,  then  should 
you  have  known  what  the  papists  do  say  in  this  matter. 
For  some  say  that  the  body  of  Christ  remaineth, 
although  it  be  in  a  dog,  or  mouse.  And  some  say  it  is 
not  in  the  mouse  or  dog,  but  remaineth  only  in  the 
person  that  eateth  it,  until  it  be  digested  in  the  stomach. 
Some  say  it  remaineth  no  longer  than  the  sacrament  is 
in  the  eating,  and  may  be  felt,  seen,  and  tasted  in  the 
mouth.  And  this,  besides  Hugo,  saith  Pope  Innocentius 
himself,  who  was  the  best  learned  and  chief  doer  in  this 
matter  of  all  the  other  popes.  Read  you  never  none  of 
these  authors,  and  yet  take  upon  you  the  full  know¬ 
ledge  of  this  matter?  Will  you  take  upon  you  to 
defend  the  papists  and  know  not  what  they  say  ?  ” 1 
“  This  is  marvellous  rhetoric,”  says  the  layman-like 
Bishop,  when  Cranmer  has  affirmed  that  the  papists 
say  “that  in  the  sacrament  the  corporal  members  of 
Christ  be  not  distant  in  place  from  one  another,  but 
wheresoever  the  head  is,  there  be  the  feet.”  “  This 
is  marvellous  rhetoric,  and  such  as  the  author  hath 
overseen  himself2  in  the  utterance  of  it,  and  con¬ 
fessed  himself  prettily  abused,  to  the.  latter  end  of 
his  years  to  have  believed  that  [which]  he  now  calleth  so 
1  Jenkyns  iii.  101.  2  Made  a  mistake. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


135 


foolish.  This  author  impudently  beareth  in  hand  1  the 
Catholic  Church  to  teach  that  [which]  he  listetli  to 
bear  in  hand  may  by  wanton  reason  be  deduced  of  their 
teaching ;  whereas  all  true  Christian  men  believe  simply 
Christ’s  words,  and  trouble  not  their  heads  with  such 
consequences  as  seem  to  strive  with  reason.”  “  This  is 
such  matter  as  were  not  tolerable  to  be  by  a  scoffer 
devised  in  a  play,  to  supply  when  his  fellow  had  for¬ 
gotten  his  part.”  “  I  bear  not  the  Church  in  hand,  as 
you  report  of  me,”  replies  the  Archbishop,  “  that  it 
saith  and  teacheth  that  whole  Christ  is  in  every  part  of 
the  bread  consecrated,  bat  I  say  that  the  papists  so  teach. 
And  because  you  deny  it,  read  the  chief  pillars  of  all 
the  papists,  Duns  and  Thomas  de  Aquino,  who  say 
that  Christ  is  whole  under  every  part  of  the  forms  of 
bread  and  wine,  not  only  when  the  host  is  broken,  but 
when  it  is  whole  also.  And  there  is  no  distance, 
saith  he,  of  parts  one  from  another,  as  of  one  eye 
from  another,  or  the  eye  from  the  ear,  or  the  head 
from  the  feet.  These  be  Thomas’s  words.  And  not 
only  the  papists  do  thus  write  and  teach,  but  the  Pope 
himself,  Innocentius  III.  And  yet  you  say,  the  Church 
saith  not  so  ;  which  I  affirm  also  ;  and  then  it  must 
needs  follow  that  the  doctrine  of  the  papists  is  not 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church.”  “  And  so  the  whole 
doctrine  of  the  papists,  which  they  have  taught  these 
four  or  five  hundred  years,  do  you  condemn  with  con¬ 
dign  reproaches,  as  a  teaching  intolerable,  not  to  be 
devised  by  a  scoffer  in  a  play.” 2  “  This  author,”  says 
the  indignant  Gardiner,  <c  findeth  fault  that  the  priest’s 
devotion  should  be  a  sacrifice  satisfactory,  and  not  the 

1  Tries  to  make  us  believe. 

2  Pp.  113,  118  foil.,  145  foil. 


136 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


tiling  that  is  offered,  which  manner  of  doctrine  I  never 
read,  and  I  think  it  myself  it  ought  to  be  improved,1 
if  any  such  there  be  to  make  the  devotion  of  the  priest 
a  satisfaction.  For  undoubtedly  Christ  is  our  satisfac¬ 
tion  wholly  and  fully.”  “Although  you  never  read,” 
returns  his  merciless  censor,  “  that  the  oblation  of  the 
priest  is  satisfactory  by  devotion  of  the  priest,  yet 
nevertheless  the  papists  do  so  teach,  and  you  may  find 
it  in  their  St.  Thomas,  both  in  his  Sum  and  upon  the 
fourth  of  the  Sentences,  whose  works  have  been  read 
in  the  universities  almost  this  three  hundred  years,  and 
never  until  this  day  reproved  by  any  of  the  papists  in 
this  point.  He  saith — ‘  The  sacrifice  of  the  priest  hath 
a  satisfactory  power ;  but  in  the  satisfaction  the  mind 
of  the  offerer  is  more  regarded  than  the  greatness  of 
the  thing  which  he  offereth.’  ”  2  The  inexorable  Primate 
gathers  up  a  list  of  twenty  articles  in  which  Gardiner’s 
ignorant  good  sense  betrayed  him  into  differing  from 
accredited  teachers  on  the  same  side. 

As  a  piece  of  dialectic  against  Gardiner,  and  against 
the  mediaeval  notions  of  the  Eucharist  generally, 
Cranmer’s  work  is  triumphant  in  almost  every  detail ; 
and  in  order  rightly  to  judge  of  his  doctrine  on  the 
subject  it  is  necessary  to  realise  how  degraded  and 
material  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  Mass  at  the 
time.  It  is  not  hard  to  understand  how,  when  once  a 
mind  like  his  had  persuaded  itself  to  allow  that  the 
usual  definitions  of  the  Eucharistic  Presence  were 
wrong,  no  intermediate  position  would  for  long  seem 
satisfactory.  Cranmer  swung  to  the  opposite  extreme. 
He  would  not  in  honesty  give  less  than  their  fullest 
force  to  those  expressions  in  Scripture  and  in  the 

1  Reprobated.  2  Pp.  150,  156, 


137 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 

Fathers  which  seemed  to  treat  the  mystery  as  nothing 
but  a  virtual  presence  and  a  commemorative  token.  .  It 
was  an  interpretation  as  one-sided  as  that  which 
Cranmer  had  discarded.  But  his  readjustment  of  belief 
never  made  him  irreverent  towards  the  sacred  ordinance, 
nor  was  he  conscious  of  any  departure  from  loyalty  to 
the  teaching  of  the  primitive  Church. 

The  evolution  of  Cranmer’s  opinion  on  this  subject 
was  narrowly  watched  and  criticised  by  many  other 
observers  besides  Gardiner  and  his  party.  Every  sign 
that  he  gave  was  chronicled  for  the  information  of 
foreign  divines,  especially  of  Bullinger,  who  had  suc¬ 
ceeded  Zwingli  at  Zurich.  The  friends  of  the  Swiss 
dictator  were  at  first  much  dissatisfied  with  Cranmer, 
and  lost  no  opportunity  of  telling  Bullinger  how  little 
opinion  the  Archbishop  had  of  him.  As  to  Canter¬ 
bury,”  writes  Traheron  in  August  1548,  he  conducts 
himself  in  such  a  way  that  the  people  do  not  think 
much  of  him,  and  the  nobility  regard  him  as  lukewarm. 
In  other  respects  he  is  a  kind,  good-natured  man. 

“  This  Thomas,”  wrote  John  ab  Ulmis  in  the  same 
month,  “  has  fallen  into  so  heavy  a  slumber,  that  we 
entertain  but  a  very  cold  hope  that  he  will  be  aioused 
even  by  your  learned  letter.  He  has  lately  published 
a  Catechism,  in  which  he  has  not  only  approved  that 
foul  and  sacrilegious  Transubstantiation  of  the  Papists, 
but  all  the  dreams  of  Luther  seem  to  him  well  grounded, 
perspicuous,  and  lucid.’  2  In  September,  they  thought 
things  looked  more  promising.  “  Latimer,”  wrote 
Traheron,  “has  come  over  to  our  opinion  respecting  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  together  with  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  other  Bishops  who  here- 

J  Orig.  Letters  p.  320.  2  Ibid.  p.  381. 


138 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


tofore  seemed  to  be  Lutherans/' 1  In  December, 
Traheron  was  elated  by  Cranmer’s  language  in  the 
debate  about  the  new  Prayerbook.  “  The  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,”  he  wrote  to  Bullinger,  “  contrary  to 
general  expectation,  most  openly,  firmly,  and  learnedly 
maintained  your  opinion  upon  this  subject.  I  perceive 
that  it  is  all  over  with  Lutheranism.”  2  But  alas,  the 
sanguine  writer  was  obliged  to  add  a  postscript  to  his 
letter :  “  The  foolish  bishops  have  made  a  marvellous 
recantation.”  Peter  Martyr,  who  was  at  that  time 
regarded  as  a  Lutheran,  and  who  was  present  at  the 
debate,  felt  no  reason  to  be  alarmed.  “  The  palm,”  he 
wrote  to  Bucer,  “remains  with  our  friends,  especially 
with  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  whom  they  till  now 
were  wont  to  traduce  as  a  man  ignorant  of  theology, 
and  only  conversant  with  matters  of  government.  But 
now,  believe  me,  he  has  shown  himself  a  mighty  theo¬ 
logian.  Transubstantiation,  I  think,  is  now  exploded.”3 
It  seemed  as  if  Lutheranism  was  about  to  triumph 
when  Bucer  himself  came  to  this  country.  “  Bucer  and 
Paul  Fagius,”  writes  Burcher  to  Bullinger  in  the 
following  May,  “  have  safely  arrived  in  England,  and 
have  wwitten  from  the  palace  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury.  I  wish  they  may  not  pervert  him,  or  make 
him  worse.” 4  “  When  I  gave  your  letter  to  the 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury,”  writes  Hooper,  also  in  May, 
“  he  did  not  vouchsafe  a  single  word  respecting  either 
yourself,  or  your  godly  Church.  Bucer  has  very  great 
influence  with  him,  and  the  Archbishop  will  appoint 
him  to  the  Regius  Professorship  at  Cambridge.” 5  But 
by  the  end  of  the  year,  Switzerland  had  beaten  Ger- 

1  Orig.  Letters  p.  322.  2  Ibid.  p.  323. 

3  Ibid.  p.  470.  4  Ibid.  p.  652.  5  Ibid.  p.  64. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  YI  139 

many,  though  there  was  still  room  for  anxiety.  “  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,”  wrote  Hooper,  “  entertains 
right  views  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ  s  presence  in  the 
Supper,  and  is  now  very  friendly  towards  myself.  He 
has  some  articles  of  religion,  to  which  all  preachers 
are  required  to  subscribe ;  and  in  these  his  sentiments 
respecting  the  Eucharist  are  pure  and  religious,  and 
similar  to  yours  in  Switzerland.  We  desire  nothing 
more  for  him  than  a  firm  and  manly  spirit.  Like  all  the 
other  Bishops  in  this  country,  he  is  too  fearful  about 
what  may  happen  to  him.”  1  By  1551,  Hooper  (himself 
then  a  bishop)  could  tell  Bullinger  that  Cranmer  was 
hardly  able  to  refrain  from  tears  at  receiving  a  letter 
from  him.  “  He  made  most  honourable  mention  both  of 
yourself  and  of  your  profound  erudition.  You  have  no 
one,  I  am  sure,  among  all  your  dearest  friends,  who  is 
more  interested  about  you,  and  loves  you  in  Christ  moie 
ardently.”  2 

The  history  of  Archbishop  Cranmer’s  opinion  with 
regard  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  of  importance  not  only 
because  of  its  bearing  upon  his  last  end,  but  because  of 
his  permanent  influence  upon  the  Church  of  England 
by  means  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Perhaps  no 
part  of  his  work  had  such  an  interest  for  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  as  the  liturgical  reform,  and  certainly  there  was 
none  for  which  posterity  has  more  reason  to  be  grateful 
to  him.  The  history  of  the  Prayerbook  down  to  the 
end  of  Edward’s  reign  is  the  biography  of  Cranmer, 
for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  almost  eveiy  line  of  it 
is  his  composition. 

It  was  a  task  for  which  he  was  well  fitted.  So  far  as 
the  study  was  possible  in  that  age,  Cranmer  was  a  student 

1  Orig.  Letters  p.  72.  2  Ibid.  p.  93, 


140 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


of  comparative  liturgiology.  “  A  singularly  clear  answer 
to  the  supposition  not  unfrequently  entertained,  that 
he  was  not  well  informed  about  liturgical  order  and 
ritual  propriety,  may  be  given,”  says  Mr.  Burbidge, 
“  by  putting  into  the  hands  of  his  critics  his  copy  of 
Gemma  Animae ,  or  Diredorium  Sacerdotum  secundum 
usum  Sarum ,  or  Erasmus’s  version  of  the  Liturgy  of 
St.  Chrysostom  ;  and  by  offering  them  a  choice  of  his 
editions  of  Durandus’s  Rationale  Divinorum  Officiorum 1 
It  was  Cranmer  who  introduced  into  the  West  the  now 
familiar  “  Prayer  of  St.  Chrysostom.”  Some  features  of 
the  Second  Prayerbook  were  very  probably  due  to  his 
acquaintance  with  the  Mozarabic  offices  of  Spain.2  He 
had  paid  attention  to  the  various  old  English  uses, 
some  of  which  would  have  been  lost  to  memory  if  he 
had  not  happened  to  mention  them  in  his  Preface  to 
the  Prayerbook.  That  Preface  was  largely  taken — as 
well  as  many  hints  for  the  daily  offices — from  the 
reforming  Breviary  of  Cardinal  Quignon.  The  attempts 
of  Hermann,  Archbishop  of  Cologne,  were  followed  with 
deep  interest  by  his  brother  Archbishop,  and  the  result 
is  very  apparent  in  our  Occasional  Offices.  And  if 
Cranmer  was  qualified  for  liturgical  revision  by  special 
studies,  he  was  no  less  qualified  by  his  splendid  command 
of  the  English  language,  and  by  his  instinctive  sense 
of  what  would  suit  average  English  minds.  His  genius 
for  devotional  composition  in  English  is  universally 
recognised,  even  by  those  who  have  least  sympathy 
with  his  character  and  career. 

As  early  as  1543 — the  year  of  the  Necessary  Erudition 
— he  had  announced  King  Henry’s  intention  of  taking 

1  Liturgies  and  Offices  of  the  Church  p.  xiv. 

2  See  Burbidge  Liturgies  and  Offices  pp.  175,  198. 


141 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 

gome  steps  in  the  reform  of  the  service  books  and  it 
was  prescribed  that  a  Lesson  should  be  read  in  English 
morning  and  evening,  after  Te  Dmm,  and  Magnificat. 
The  year  after,  Cranmer  was  employed  in  composing 
English  Litanies,  or  “  Processions,”  and  a  deeply  inter¬ 
esting  letter  of  his  is  preserved,  in  which  he  says  to  the 

“  According  to  your  Highness’s  commandment,  I 
have  translated  into  the  English  tongue,  so  well  as  I 
could  in  so  short  time,  certain  processions,  to  be  used 
upon  festival  days,  if  after  due  correction  and  amend¬ 
ment  of  the  same  your  Highness  shall  think  so  con¬ 
venient.  In  which  translation,  forasmuch  as  many  ol 
the  processions  in  the  Latin  were  but  barren,  as  me 
seemed,  and  little  fruitful,  I  was  constrained  to  use 
more  than  the  liberty  of  a  translator.  Some  processions 
I  have  added  whole,  because  I  thought  I  had  better 
matter  for  the  purpose  than  was  the  procession  m 
Latin ;  the  judgment  whereof  I  refer  wholly  to  your 
Majesty.  And  after  your  Highness  hath  corrected  1  , 
if  your  Grace  command  some  devout  and  solemn  no  e 
to  be  made  thereunto,  I  trust  it  will  much  excitate  and 
stir  the  hearts  of  all  men  unto  devotion  and  godliness. 
After  some  recommendations  about  the  music,  be  adds 
«  As  concerning  the  Salve,  fiesta  dies,  the  Latin  note,  as 
I  think,  is  sober  and  distinct  enough ;  wherefore  I  have 
travailed  to  make  the  verses  in  English,  and  have  put 
the  Latin  note  unto  the  same.  Nevertheless,  they  that 
be  cunning  in  singing  can  make  a  much  more  solemn 
note  thereto.  I  made  them  only  for  a  proof,  to  see  how 
English  would  do  in  song.  But  because  mine  Englis  1 
verses  lack  the  grace  and  facility  that  I  would  wish  they 

1  Wilkins  iii.  863. 


142 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


had,  your  Majesty  may  cause  some  other  to  make  them 
again,  that  can  do  the  same  in  more  pleasant  English 
and  phrase.”  1 

Except  for  the  publication  of  an  authorised  Primer 
(or  book  of  Private  Devotions)  in  154G,  which  was 
intended  to  supersede  all  other  Primers,  no  more  was 
done  in  the  direction  of  reforming  the  services  during 
Henry  VIII.’s  reign.  Projects  there  were,  however,  for 
further  action.  Cranmer  told  Morice,  and  Morice  told 
Foxe,  of  a  conversation  which  took  place  at  Hampton 
Court  in  August  1546,  when  “the  great  ambassador” 
came  from  Francis  I.  to  Henry.  “  After  the  banquet  was 
done  the  first  night,  the  King  was  leaning  upon  the 
ambassador  and  upon  me.  If  I  should  tell  what  com¬ 
munication  was  had,  concerning  the  establishment  of 
sincere  religion  then,  a  man  would  hardly  have  believed 
it ;  nor  had  I  myself  thought  the  King’s  Highness  had 
been  so  forward  in  these  matters  as  then  appeared.  I 
may  tell  you  it  passed  the  pulling  down  of  roods,  and 
suppressing  the  ringing  of  bells.  I  take  it  that  few  in 
England  would  have  believed  that  the  King’s  Majesty 
and  the  French  King  had  been  at  this  point,  within 
half  a  year  after  to  have  changed  the  Mass  in  both 
the  realms  into  a  Communion,  as  we  now  use  it. 
And  herein  the  King’s  Highness  willed  me  (quoth 
the  Archbishop)  to  pen  a  form  thereof  to  he  sent  to 
the  French  King  to  consider  of.” 2  But  the  deaths 

1  On  the  question  of  the  date  of  this  letter,  see  Jenkyns  i.  316. 
The  translation  of  Salve  festQj  dies  is  unhappily  lost.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  we  have  a  specimen  of  Cranmer’s  translation  into 
metre  in  the  longer  version  of  Veni  Creator  Spiritus  in  the 
Ordinal,  though  it  has  undergone  modification  (see  Julian’s 
Dictionary  of  Hymnology  1209). 

2  Foxe  v.  563. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


143 


first  of  Henry  and  then  of  Francis  broke  off  the 
scheme. 

Notwithstanding  the  reluctance,  which  Cranmer  at 
first  showed,  to  make  or  allow  innovations  during 
Edward’s  minority,  he  was  soon  found  endeavouring  to 
execute  what  had  thus  been  suggested  by  Henry. 
Before  the  end  of  the  year  in  which  Henry  died,  it  was 
unanimously  determined  by  Convocation  that  the  Com¬ 
munion  should  be  administered  to  all  Christians  under 
both  kinds;  and  by  March  of  the  following  year  (1548), 
the  new  Order  of  the  Communion  appeared,  which, 
while  it  retained  the  old  Latin  service  of  the  Mass, 
surrounded  it  with  English  exhortations  and  devotions, 
most  of  which  still  stand  in  our  Prayerbook.  They  are 
mainly  based  upon  the  “  Consultation  ”  of  Archbishop 
Hermann  of  Cologne,  which  had  been  translated  into 
English  and  was  familiarly  known  to  the  Archbishop. 
Before  the  last  month  of  1548  ran  out,  Parliament  had 
approved  the  First  Prayerbook  of  Edward  VI.,  which 
received  the  encomiums  of  Bishop  Gardiner,  and  which 
probably  constituted  the  “  marvellous  recantation  ” 
of  Swiss  principles  complained  of  by  Traheron  to 
Bullinger. 

But  scarcely  was  the  First  Prayerbook  published, 
when  its  chief  author  began  to  prepare  for  a  second. 
He  was  already  surrounded  by  foreign  divines — some 
of  whom  had  taken  refuge  in  England  from  troubles 
abroad,  some  came  on  Cranmer’s  invitation.  A  Lasco, 
Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  Fagius,  Ochino,  Tremellius,  were 
among  the  more  distinguished  of  the  company.  To  the 
list  of  foreigners  who  surrounded  Cranmer  must  be 
added  the  name  of  the  Scotch  Calvinist,  John  Knox. 
“  We  desire,”  wrote  the  Archbishop  to  Hardenberg  in 


144 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


July  1548,  “to  set  before  our  Churches  the  true  theology, 
and  we  have  decided  that  we  need  the  presence  of 
learned  men,  to  compare  their  decisions  with  ours,  so 
as  to  do  away  with  doctrinal  controversies,  and  build  up 
a  whole  body  of  true  doctrine.  We  have  summoned  a 
great  many  godly  and  learned  men,  some  of  whom  we 
have  already  got,  and  expect  others  soon.” 1  To  induce 
Melanchthon  to  come  was  an  object  of  repeated  and 
earnest  effort.  “  If,”  says  Cranmer,  “  when  a  similar 
appeal  was  made  to  him  by  that  holy  old  Elector  of 
Cologne,  he  resolved  not  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  it,  surely 
he  will  feel  bound  to  listen  now,  in  a  case  of  far  greater 
importance  and  urgency.”  He  desired  to  hold  a  Pan- 
evangelical  Council,  in  opposition  to  that  which  was 
assembled  at  Trent.  “Our  adversaries,”  he  wrote  to 
Calvin,  “  are  now  holding  their  Council  at  Trent  for 
the  establishing  of  errors,  and  shall  we  fail  to  assemble 
a  godly  synod  to  refute  errors,  and  to  purify  and  pro¬ 
pagate  our  doctrines  ?  They,  I  hear,  are  making  decrees 
regarding  Bread-worship ;  therefore  we  ought  to  leave 
no  stone  unturned,  not  only  to  protect  others  against 
this  idolatry,  but  also  to  come  to  an  agreement  among 
ourselves  upon  the  doctrine  of  this  sacrament.  With 
your  powers  of  observation  you  cannot  but  see  how 
much  the  Church  of  God  is  weakened  by  dissensions  and 
differences  of  opinion  regarding  this  sacrament  of  unit)7. 
I  am  anxious  for  agreement  in  this  doctrine,  not  only 
about  the  subject  itself,  but  also  about  the  very  words 
and  forms  of  expression.” 2  Not  only  Calvin  and 
Melanchthon,  but  Bullinger  also,  received  letters  from 
Canterbury  to  aid  in  the  great  project. 

Those  three  illustrious  personages  could  not,  or  did 

1  Jenkyns  i.  332.  2  Ibid.  346. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


145 


not,  come;  but  two  of  them  wrote  their  minds,  and 
altogether  Cranmer  had  no  lack  of  foreign  advice.  In 
1552  (an  English  Ordinal  having  in  the  meantime  been 
completed  and  put  in  use)  the  Second  Prayerbook, 
which  was  in  all  its  main  points  our  present  book,  was 
ordered  to  be  used,  after  receiving  the  criticisms  of 
Bucer  and  others.  It  shows  how  far  the  Archbishop 
was  prepared  to  go  in  satisfying  the  extreme  innovators. 
As  regards  the  main  question  of  the  day,  the  Eucharistic 
service  was  entirely  rearranged.  While  the  First 
Prayerbook  had  followed  in  the  main  the  order  of  the 
pre-reformation  service,  the  new  one  was  upon  an 
altogether  original  plan.  All  direct  invocation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  sacramental  elements  was  omitted. 
The  great  intercession  was  no  longer  connected  with  the 
Consecration.  The  Lord’s  Prayer,  with  its  significant 
petition  for  the  Christian’s  Daily  Bread,  was  placed 
after  the  Communion,  and  no  longer  before  it.  So  was 
the  Gloria  in  Excelsis.  There  was  no  longer  any  explicit 
prayer  for  the  faithful  departed.  The  sacrificial 
character  of  the  Eucharist  does  not  depend  upon  any 
special  prayers  or  ceremonies  that  may  be  performed  or 
uttered  in  the  course  of  the  service,  but  resides  in  the 
celebration  of  the  sacrament  as  a  whole,  and  no  action 
of  the  liturgical  reformers  could  get  rid  of  it ;  but  this 
aspect  of  the  service  was  as  much  obscured  as  could 
easily  be  done. 

And  yet  the  Second  Prayerbook  itself  is  a  monu¬ 
ment  of  the  moderation  of  Archbishop  Cranmer.  If 
there  are  in  it  omissions  which  Catholic-minded  men 
may  regret,  yet  there  is  not  a  single  phrase  in  it 
which  a  Catholic-minded  man  need  hesitate  to  use. 
The  service  is  rich  and  ample  in  comparison  with 


146 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


anything  which,  foreign  reformed  communities  use. 
Although  Cranmer  himself  once  or  twice  speaks 
somewhat  slightingly  of  “consecration,”  yet  in  the 
liturgy  he  made  the  recital  of  the  words  of  institution 
to  form  part  of  a  Prayer  of  Consecration,  instead  of  the 
bare  reading  of  them  to  the  congregation,  which  was 
all  that  the  foreign  bodies  permitted.  While  Luther¬ 
anism  forbade  the  celebrant  of  the  Eucharist  to  receive 
the  sacrament  himself,  because  that  was  looked  upon 
as  the  consummation  of  the  sacrifice,  the  English  book 
laid  it  down — “Then  shall  the  minister  first  receive 
the  Communion  in  both  kinds  himself.”  Although  the 
words  used  at  the  delivery  of  the  sacrament  were  not 
what  the  Church  had  hitherto  used,  yet  the  scriptural 
“  Take  and  eat  this,”  “  Drink  this,”  were  not  narrowed 
by  any  interpretative  addition,  such  as  “  this  bread, 

“  this  wine.”  The  more  impressive  and  special  vestments 
prescribed  in  the  first  book  were  laid  aside  in  the 
second;  yet  the  bishop’s  rochet  and  the  presbyter’s 
surplice  remained,  to  the  scandal  of  most  of  the  Swiss 
party.  Provision  continued  to  be  made  that  the 
“  solemn  note  ”  which  Cranmer  loved  should  be  used  to 
“  excitate  devotion.”  And  in  spite  of  all  his  invective 
against  “artolatry,”  the  Archbishop  inserted  in  the 
Second  Prayerbook  (what  had  not  been  thought  necessary 
to  mention  in  the  First)  a  rubric  to  say  that  the  com¬ 
municants  were  to  be  “  kneeling  ”  at  the  moment  of 
reception.  He  knew  what  he  was  about  in  inserting 
that  rubric.  Hooper,  A  Lasco,  and  others,  had  already 
been  denouncing  the  posture.  John  Knox  alarmed  the 
Council  by  the  vehemence  with  which  he  took  the 
same  side.  The  all-powerful  Council  stopped  the  issue 
of  the  Prayerbook,  and  bade  Cranmer  call  to  him  Ridley 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


147 


and  Peter  Martyr,  or  such-like,  and  “weigh  the  pre¬ 
scription  of  kneeling.”  Cranmer  replied  that  he  would 
consult  with  them,  but  that  he  trusted  “  that  we  with 
just  balance  weighed  this  at  the  making  of  the  book,” 
and  added  that  the  Council  were  not  wise  to  wish  to  alter 
the  book  at  the  motion  of  “these  glorious  and  unquiet 
spirits,”  who  would  still  find  faults  if  the  book  were  “made 
every  year  anew.”  In  spite  of  storms  of  opposition,  he 
would  not  hear  of  allowing  communicants  to  stand  or 
sit ;  he  said  they  might  as  well  “  lie  down  on  the  ground 
and  eat  their  meat  like  Turks  or  Tartars.”  The  “  Black 
Rubric,”  which  the  Council  thereupon  engrafted  upon 
the  book,  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  posture,  was 
probably  not  of  Cranmer ’s  penning,  and  seems  to  have 
had  no  sanction  from  Cranmer.1 

It  was  not  with  a  view  to  the  Prayerbook  only  that 
Cranmer  desired  the  help  of  the  leading  foreign  divines : 
he  was  anxious  to  renew  under  Edward  what  had  fallen 
through  under  Henry,  the  attempt  to  formulate  some 
general  Confession  of  Faith  which  might  be  accepted 
by  all  reformed  Christians,  so  as  to  present  an  unbroken 
front  to  Rome, — and  not  to  Rome  only.  “  Although  all 
controversies  cannot  be  settled  in  this  world,”  he  wrote 
to  Melanchthon,  “because  the  party  opposed  to  the 
truth  will  not  assent  to  the  Church’s  judgment,  yet  it 
is  desirable  that  the  members  of  the  true  Church  should 
come  to  an  agreement  concerning  the  principal  articles 
of  Church  teaching.”2  When  he  found  that  this 
scheme  was  doomed  to  failure,  he  communicated  to  the 
foreigners  his  determination  to  draw  up  a  separate 
Confession  for  the  English  Church,  and  received  the 

1  See  the  curious  history  in  Dixon  iii.  475  foil. 

2  Jenkyns  i.  348.  Dated  March  27,  1552. 


148 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


encouragement  of  Calvin.1  He  had  already  for  some 
time  past  used  certain  articles  as  a  test  for  all  preachers 
and  lecturers  whom  he  licensed.2  In  the  last  year  of 
Edward’s  reign,  he  succeeded  in  procuring  that  Forty- 
two  Articles  should  be  set  forth  and  put  in  general  use, 
though  not  by  order  of  Convocation.  They  were 
founded  upon  that  adaptation  of  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg  which,  in  the  reign  of  Henry,  Cranmer  had 
devised  with  the  deputation  from  Germany  with  a  view 
to  doctrinal  unity.  Although  these  Articles  were  fre¬ 
quently  examined  and  emended  by  the  Council,  and  by 
experts,  they  were,  no  doubt,  mainly  the  Archbishop’s 
work,  and  they  are  the  foundation  of  our  present 
Thirty-nine.  No  hard  and  narrow  dogmatism  was  in 
them  opposed  to  the  dogmatisms  of  the  Continent. 
“  They  showed,”  says  Mr.  Dixon,  “  a  surprisingly  com¬ 
prehensive  and  moderate  spirit.  The  broad  soft  touch 
of  Cranmer  lay  upon  them.”  3 

Another  of  Cranmer’s  labours  was  destined  to  have 
less  effect  upon  the  Church  than  his  labours  for  the 
Prayerbook  and  the  Articles.  Ever  since  the  Sub¬ 
mission  of  the  Clergy,  in  the  time  of  Warham, 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  as  such,  had  been  in  abeyance. 
No  one  knew  what  parts  of  the  old  Canon  Law  were 
still  in  force,  nor  what  ecclesiastical  tribunals  were 
empowered  to  do.  By  the  Act  of  Submission  the 
revision  of  the  ecclesiastical  law  was  entrusted  to  a  com¬ 
mission  of  thirty- two  persons,  to  be  nominated  by  the 
Crown.  From  time  to  time  the  commission  was  indeed 
nominated,  but  it  never  did  any  work.  Probably  Henry 
VIII.  had  no  wish  to  see  a  new  code  established  which 

1  See  Jenkyns  i.  34*7.  2  See  above,  p.  139. 

3  Dixon  iii.  520. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


149 


miglit  define  and  restrict  his  powers  over  the  Church. 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  however,  made  repeated  efforts 
to  rectify  this  chaotic  state  of  things.  The  last  of 
these  efforts  issued — the  date  is  uncertain,  but  it  was 
in  Edward’s  reign — in  the  production  of  the  book  called 
the  Reformatio  Legum  Ecclesiasticarum.  It  was  not 
the  unaided  composition  of  the  Archbishop.  Peter 
Martyr  seems  to  have  had  some  share  in  it,  and  it 
took  its  literary  form — in  the  Latin — from  the  hand  of 
Walter  Haddon.  Yet  the  conception  of  the  work 
was  Cranmer’s,  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  its  pro¬ 
posed  enactments  indicate  what  Cranmer,  under  the 
influence  of  his  foreign  counsellers,  was  prepared  to 
defend. 

The  form  of  the  book  is  that  of  a  series  of  royal 
enactments.  The  King  commences  with  declaring  him¬ 
self  the  minister  of  God,  and  desiring  and  commanding 
that  all  his  subjects  should  embrace  and  profess  the 
Christian  religion.  Those  who  refuse  it,  estrange  God 
from  themselves ;  and  the  King  pronounces  their  pro¬ 
perty  and  their  life  to  be  forfeited.  The  true  foundation 
for  a  religious  system  of  law  is  said  to  lie  in  a  right 
belief;  and  accordingly  the  first  part  of  the  book  con¬ 
sists  of  a  statement  of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  to 
which  is  subjoined  a  description  of  various  heresies  with 
which  the  Church  is  threatened.  These  heresies  include 
the  chief  heresies  of  ancient  times;  but  the  main 
censures  of  the  book  are  directed  against  Popish 
doctrines  on  the  one  hand,  and  still  more  emphatically 
against  the  Anabaptist  doctrines  on  the  other.  Nor 
was  the  threat  of  death  for  heresy  intended  to  be  but 
a  brutum  fulmen.  Joan  Bocher  was  not  the  only  person 
burned  for  heresy  under  Edward  VI.,  and  Cranmer 


150 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


himself  sat  on  the  commission  which  sent  to  the  stake 
a  Flemish  impugner  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.1 

There  is,  of  course,  much  difference  between  the 
sacramental  teaching  in  the  Eeformatio  Legum  and 
that  of  the  Necessary  Erudition.  “We  will,”  the  King 
is  made  to  say,  ‘  that  the  symbolical  bread  and  wine,  if 
not  used  for  the  pious  and  scriptural  purpose  of  Com¬ 
munion,  should  be  held  in  no  higher  esteem  than  the 
bread  and  wine  which  we  daily  use.”  The  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  is  described  as  being  no  less 
of  a  quagmiie  than  the  Roman.  Men  are  warned 
against  supposing  that  regenerative  force  and  spiritual 
grace  reside  in  the  baptismal  font  itself.  Yet  the 
orthodoxy  of  Cranmer  condemns  severely  the  opposite 
enoi  of  the  Sacramentarians, — as  in  that  age  they  were 
called.  Great  is  the  rashness  of  those  who  reduce  the 
sacraments  to  bare  signs  and  outward  badges  by  which 
the  religion  of  Christians  may  be  known  from  that  of 
others,  and  who  consider  not  how  great  wickedness  it  is 
to  conceive  of  these  holy  ordinances  of  God  as  though 
they  were  empty  and  hollow  things.”  It  is  “a  cruel 
impiety”  which  refuses  Baptism  to  little  children. 
“  The  children  of  Christians  belong  to  God  and  the 
Church,  as  much  as  those  of  the  Hebrews,  who  received 
circumcision  in  infancy.  It  is,  however,  an  impious  and 
superstitious  thing  to  hold  that  the  grace  of  God  is  so 
tied  to  the  sacraments  that  children  dying  unbaptized, 
through  no  fault  of  their  own,  are  lost:— “We  judo-e,” 
says  the  King,  “that  the  truth  is  far  otherwise.”2 

There  are  things  in  the  book  which  show  that  Cranmer 
had  parted  with  other  of  his  earlier  convictions  besides 
those  which  concerned  the  Eucharist.  He  who  had  so 

1  Dixon  iii.  273.  2  Pp<  16)  18>  19  (ed>  1850)> 


151 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 

sharply  reprobated  the  German  Reformers  foi  allowing 
divorce,  now  recommended  that  if  one  of  the  parties 
to  a  marriage  was  guilty  of  adultery,  the  other,  being 
blameless,  should  be  permitted  to  form  a  new  alliance. 
This  was  grounded  upon  the  assumption  that  our  Eoid  s 
words,  “  saving  for  the  cause  of  fornication,  meant  the 
sin  of  adultery,  and  applied  to  the  “  marrying  another,” 
as  well  as  to  the  “  putting  away  ”  of  the  first  partner. 
Desertion,  long  absence,  deadly  enmity,  ill-usage,  were 
also  considered  sufficient  to  warrant  divorce.  A  strong 
condemnation  was  pronounced  upon  the  sepaiations 
vinculo  durante,  which  had  formerly  been  permitted. 

Perhaps  no  part  of  the  work  is  more  revolutionary 
than  that  which  dealt  with  the  constitutional  action  of 
the  Church  at  large.  If  a  bishop,  after  paternal 
admonition,  proved  negligent  in  the  maintenance  of 
discipline,  it  was  provided  that  the  archbishop  should 
have  power  to  put  another  man  in  his  place.  No 
reference  is  made  to  the  time-honoured  Convocations 
of  the  English  provinces : — whether  they  were  to  be 
considered  as  abrogated,  or  whether  they  were  to  remain 
as  an  engine  for  the  taxation  of  the  clergy  and  the  like, 
may  be  uncertain;  but  they  are  not  mentioned. 
Instead  of  them,  or  possibly  alongside  of  them,  the 
archbishop  of  each  province  is  at  liberty  to  summon, 
with  the  royal  approval,  a  synod  of  his  provincial 
bishops,  and  of  them  only,  for  the  determination  of  any 
grave  question  that  may  arise.  In  each  diocese  a  yearly 
synod  is  to  be  held,  before  Palm  Sunday,  which  is  to  be 
attended  by  all  the  clergy  of  the  diocese.  Laymen  who 
receive  the  special  permission  of  the  bishop  may  be 
present  at  the  deliberations;  the  rest  aie  excluded. 
At  the  close  of  the  deliberations,  the  bishop  may 


152 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


pronounce  canons  and  decrees  of  binding  validity.  The 
benefits  of  such  synods  are  set  forth  in  just  and  striking 
terms,  and  especially  the  benefit  of  direct  intercourse 
between  the  bishop  and  his  clergy.  “  By  means  of  such 
synods  union  and  love  between  the  bishop  and  clergy 
will  be  increased  and  maintained.  The  bishop  will 
form  closer  acquaintance  with  his  clergy,  and  will 
address  them ;  while  the  clergy  will  hear  the  bishop 
speaking  face  to  face  with  them,  and  will  be  able,  when 
necessary,  to  put  questions  to  him.”  1 

The  duties  of  patrons  are  very  impressively  set  forth ; 
and  the  bishop  is  directed  to  form  a  body  of  examiners, 
whose  business  it  shall  be,  along  with  the  archdeacon, 
and  (when  possible)  with  the  bishop  himself,  to  examine 
every  man  presented  to  a  living,  and  not  to  institute 
him  if  the  examination  is  unsatisfactory.  Before  the 
examination,  the  candidate  is  to  be  put  on  his  oath  to 
answer  faithfully.  Then  strict  inquiry  is  to  be  made, 
both  with  regard  to  his  principles  of  life,  and  with 
regard  to  his  “views  of  the  Catholic  faith  and  the 
sacred  mystery  of  the  Trinity,”  of  the  canonical  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  of  current  controversies.  The  examiners  are 
then  to  hear  him  expound  the  Catechism.  Infirmities 
such  as  blindness,  stammering,  hideous  disfigurement, 
bad  breath,  are  to  preclude  a  man  from  holding  a 
benefice.2 

It  is  always  a  hard  thing  to  draw  up  a  paper  con¬ 
stitution  ;  and  most  of  all  in  the  case  of  a  society  like 
the  Church,  in  which  tradition  must  necessarily  count 
for  much.  The  Reformatio  legum ■  was  of  such  a 
character.  Instead  of  selecting  from  the  mass  of  exist¬ 
ing  canons  those  which  were  deemed  to  be  still  useful 
1  P.  108  foil.  2  p  59  fol]. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


153 


for  the  guidance  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  adding 
to  them  such  new  ones  as  experience  suggested,  it 
proceeded  tabula  rasa  to  provide  for  every  contingency 
of  Church  life  in  an  entirely  new  form.  It  is  on  the 
whole  a  good  thing  for  the  Church  of  England  that 
the  project  never  became  law,  either  in  Edward’s  time, 
or  later,  when  Parker  revived  it  under  Elizabeth.  Yet 
the  work  was  a  bold  and  honest  attempt  to  remedy  a 
great  evil,  and  to  simplify  ecclesiastical  law ;  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  book  is  admirable  for  its  wisdom 
and  its  high  spiritual  tone. 

The  wisest  and  most  spiritual  reforms  in  religion 
do  not  always  carry  the  consent  and  goodwill  of  the 
people  whom  they  are  intended  to  benefit,  and  it  was 
the  misfortune  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  to  be  often  on 
the  unpopular  side,  even  in  the  reign  of  Edward. 
The  introduction  of  the  first  English  Prayerbook  was 
the  signal  for  a  formidable  insurrection  in  the  west 
country,  as  the  overthrow  of  the  monasteries  had  been 
the  signal  for  the  Pilgrimage  of  Grace  in  the  north. 
While  Russell  and  Grey  of  Wilton  were  mowing 
down  the  men  of  Devon  and  Cornwall  with  the  swords 
and  muskets  of  foreign  mercenaries,  the  Archbishop 
was  set  to  demolish  with  his  pen  the  demands  which 
they  sent  in  to  the  Council.  It  is  an  essay  which  calls 
forth  varied  feelings  in  the  reader.  While  with  some 
biographers  of  Cranmer  we  may  admire  the  ease  and 
homeliness  of  the  style,  with  others  we  may  wonder  at 
the  way  in  which  Cranmer  mixes  learned  arguments  with 
contemptuous  chiding  of  the  ignorant  west  countrymen. 
“  0  ignorant  men  of  Devonshire  and  Cornwall,”  he 
exclaims,  “as  soon  as  ever  I  heard  your  articles,  I 
thought  that  you  were  deceived  by  some  crafty  papists, 


154 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


to  make  you  ask  you  wist  not  what.  How  many  of  you, 
I  pray  you,  do  know  certainly  which  be  called  the 
General  Councils,  and  holy  decrees  of  the  fathers,  and 
what  is  in  them  contained  ?  The  holy  decrees,  as  they 
call  them,  be  nothing  else  but  the  laws  and  ordinances 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  whereof  the  most  part  be  made 
for  his  own  advancement,  glory,  and  lucre.  A  great 
number  of  the  Councils  repugn  one  against  another; 
how  should  they  then  be  all  kept,  when  one  is  contrary 
to  another,  and  the  keeping  of  one  is  the  breaking  of 
another  ?  These  statements  the  Archbishop  proceeds 
to  illustrate  with  copious  examples ;  and  the  contradic¬ 
tions  become  more  pointed  when  he  discusses  the  second 
demand,  that  along  with  all  the  decrees  of  the  General 
Councils  the  Six  Articles  should  be  put  in  force  again. 
“It  is  contained/’  he  says,  “in  the  Canons  of  the 
Apostles  that  a  priest  under  no  pretence  of  holiness 
may  put  away  his  wife ;  and  if  he  do,  he  shall  be  ex¬ 
communicated.  And  the  Six  Articles  say  that  if  a 
priest  put  not  away  his  wife,  he  shall  be  taken  for  a 

felon.  You  be  cunning  men,  if  you  can  set  these  two 
together.” 

Will  you  not  understand  what  the  priest  prayeth 
for  you  ?  Had  you  rather  be  like  pies  or  parrots,  that 
be  taught  to  speak  and  yet  understand  not  one  word 
what  they  say,  than  be  true  Christian  men,  that  pray 
unto  God  in  heart  and  faith  ?  I  have  heard  suitors 
murmur  at  the  bar,  because  their  attornies  have  pleaded 
theircases  in  the  French  tongue,  which  they  understood 
not.  W  hy  then  be  you  offended  that  the  priests,  which 
pleadeth  your  cause  before  God,  should  speak  such 
language  as  you  may  understand  ?  Be  you  such 
enemies  to  your  own  country  that  you  will  not  suffer  us 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI  155 

to  laud  God,  to  thank  Him,  and  to  use  His  sacraments 
in  our  own  tongue  ?  ” 

“You  will  have  neither  man  nor  woman  communi¬ 
cate  with  the  priest.  Alas,  good  simple  souls,  how  be 
you  blinded  with  the  papists  !  The  very  words  of  the 
Mass  show  plainly  that  it  was  ordained  not  only  for 
the  priest,  but  for  others  also  to  communicate  with  the 
priest.  For  in  the  very  Canon  which  they  so  much 
extol,  and  which  is  so  holy  that  no  man  may  know  what 
it  is,  and  therefore  is  read  so  softly  that  no  man  can 
hear  it,  in  that  same  Canon,  I  say,  is  a  prayer  contain¬ 
ing  this ;  that  ‘  not  only  the  priest,  but  as  many  beside 
as  communicate  with  him,  may  be  fulfilled  with  grace 
and  heavenly  benediction.’  And  although  I  would 
exhort  every  good  Christian  man  often  to  receive  the 
Holy  Communion,  yet  I  do  not  recite  these  things  to 
the  intent  that  the  old  Canons  should  be  restored  again, 
which  commanded  every  man  present  to  receive  the 
Communion  with  the  priest ;  which  Canons,  if  they  were 
now  used,  I  fear  that  many  would  receive  it  unworthily; 
but  I  speak  them  to  condemn  your  article,  which  would 
have  nobody  to  be  communicated  with  the  priest. 
Which  your  article  condemneth  the  old  decrees,  canons, 
and  General  Councils, — condemneth  all  the  old  primitive 
Church,  all  the  old  ancient  holy  doctors  and  martyrs, 
and  all  the  forms  and  manner  of  masses  that  were  ever 
made,  both  new  and  old.  Therefore  eat  again  this 
article,  if  you  will  not  be  condemned  of  the  whole 
world.” 

“  Is  this  the  holy  Catholic  faith,  that  the  Sacrament 
should  be  hanged  over  the  altar  and  worshipped? 
Innocent  III.,  about  1215  years  after  Christ,  did  ordain 
that  the  Sacrament  should  be  kept  under  lock  and  key. 


158 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


After  him  came  Honorius  III.;  and  although  this 
Honorius  added  the  worshipping  of  the  Sacrament,  yet 
he  made  no  mention  of  the  hanging  thereof  over  the 
high  altar;  and  in  Italy  it  is  not  yet  used  until  this 
day.  And  will  you  have  all  them  that  will  not  consent 
to  your  article  to  die  like  heretics  that  hold  against  the 
Catholic  faith  ?  ” 

A  most  godly  prince  of  famous  memory,  King 
Henry  VIII.,  pitying  to  see  his  subjects  many  years 
brought  up  in  darkness  and  ignorance  of  God  by  the 
erroneous  doctrine  and  traditions  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  with  the  counsel  of  all  his  nobles  and  learned 
men,  studied  by  all  means,  and  that  to  his  no  little 
danger  and  charges,  to  bring  you  out  of  your  said  ignor¬ 
ance  and  darkness.  And  our  most  dread  Sovereign  Lord 
that  now  is,  succeeding  his  father  as  well  in  this  godly 
intent  as  in  his  realms  and  dominions,  hath  with  no 
less  care  and  diligence  studied  to  perform  his  father’s 
purpose.  And  you,  like  men  that  wilfully  shutteth 
their  own  eyes,  refuse  to  receive  the  light.  You  will 
have  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  delivered  to  the  lay 
people  but  once  in  the  year,  and  then  but  under  one 
kind.  V hat  injury  do  you  to  many  godly  persons ! 
In  the  Apostles  time,  the  people  of  Jerusalem  received 
it  every  day.  And  after,  they  received  it  in  some  places 
every  day,  in  some  places  four  times  in  the  week,  in 
some  places  three  times,  some  twice,  and  commonly 
everywhere  at  the  least  once  in  the  week.  In  the 
beginning,  when  men  were  most  godly  and  most  fervent 
m  the  Holy  Spiiit,  then  they  received  the  Communion 
daily.  But  when  the  Spirit  of  God  began  to  be  more 
cold  in  men  s  hearts,  and  they  waxed  more  worldly  than 
godly,  then  their  desire  was  not  so  hot  to  receive  the 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI  157 

Communion  as  it  was  before.  An  ungodly  man  abborretli 
it,  and  not  without  cause  dare  in  no  wise  approach 
thereunto.  But  to  them  that  live  godly,  it  is  the 
greatest  comfort  that  in  this  world  can  be  imagined; 
and  the  more  godly  a  man  is,  the  more  sweetness  and 
spiritual  pleasure  and  desire  he  shall  have  often  to 
receive  it.  And  will  you  be  so  ungodly  to  command 
the  priest  that  he  shall  not  deliver  it  to  him  but  at 
Easter,  and  then  but  only  in  one  kind  ?  ” 

“  0  superstition  and  idolatry !  how  they  prevail 
among  you  !  The  very  true  heavenly  bread,  the  food  of 
everlasting  life,  offered  unto  you  in  the  sacrament  of 
the  Holy  Communion,  you  refuse  to  eat  but  only  at 
Easter ;  and  the  cup  of  the  most  holy  Blood,  wherewith 
you  were  redeemed  and  washed  from  your  sins,  you 
refuse  utterly  to  drink  of  at  any  time.  And  yet  in  the 
stead  of  these  you  will  eat  often  of  the  unsavoury  and 
poisoned  bread  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  drink  of  his 
stinking  puddles,  which  he  nameth  holy  bread  and  holy 
water !  ” 

“  You  say  that  you  will  have  the  old  service,  because 
the  new  is  ‘  like  a  Christmas  game.’  You  declare  your¬ 
selves  what  spirit  you  be  led  withal,  or  rather  what 
spirit  leadeth  them  that  persuaded  you  that  the  word 
of  God  is  but  like  a  Christmas  game.  It  is  more 
like  a  game  and  a  fond  play  to  hear  the  priest  speak 
aloud  to  the  people  in  Latin,  and  the  people  listen  with 
their  ears  to  hear,  and  some  walking  up  and  down  in 
the  church  saying  other  prayers  in  Latin,  and  none 
understandeth  other.  Forasmuch  as  you  understood 
not  the  old  Latin  service,  I  shall  rehearse  some  things 
in  English  which  were  wont  to  be  read  in  Latin,  that 
when  you  understand  them  you  may  judge  them, 


158 


THOMAS  CRANMEIi 

whether  they  or  God’s  Word  seem  to  be  more  like  plays 
or  Christmas  games.”  This  the  Archbishop  proceeds  to 
do,  in  very  plain  English  indeed.  “In  the  English 
service  is  there  nothing  else  but  the  eternal  word  of 
God.  St.  Paul  saith  plainly  that  the  word  of  God  is 
foolishness  only  to  them  that  perish ;  but  to  them  that 
shall  be  saved  it  is  God’s  might  and  power.  To  some 
it  is  a  lively  savour  unto  life,  and  to  some  it  is  a  deadly 
savour  unto  death.  If  it  be  to  you  but  a  Christmas 
game,  it  is  then  a  savour  of  death  unto  death.  But  as 
Chiist  commonly  excused  the  simple  people,  because  of 
their  ignorance,  and  justly  condemned  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  which  by  their  crafty  persuasions  led  the 
people  out  of  the  right  way,  so  I  think  not  you  so  much 
to  be  blamed  as  these  Pharisees  and  papistical  priests 
which,  abusing  your  simplicity,  caused  you  to  ask  you 
wist  not  what.” 

*  -^°  reason  with  you  by  learning  which  be  unlearned, 
it  were  but  folly.  The  Scripture  rnaketh  mention  of 
two  places  where  the  dead  be  received  after  this  life,  of 
Heaven  and  of  Hell;  but  of  Purgatory  is  not  one  word 
spoken.  Purgatory  was  wont  to  be  called  a  fire  as  hot 
as  Hell,  but  not  so  long  during.  But  now  the  defenders 
of  Purgatory  within  this  realm  be  ashamed  so  to  say  : 
nevertheless  they  say  it  is  a  third  place,  but  where  or 
what  it  is,  they  confess  themselves  they  cannot  tell. 
Truth  it  is  that  Scripture  maketh  mention  of  Paradise 
and  Abraham’s  bosom  after  this  life;  but  these  be 
places  of  joy  and  consolation,  not  of  pains  and  torments. 
Seeing  that  the  Scriptures  so  often  and  so  diligently 
teach  us  to  relieve  all  them  that  be  in  necessity,  to  feed 
the  hungry,  to  clothe  the  naked,  and  so  to  all  other  that 
have  need  of  our  help;  and  the  same  in  no  place 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


159 


maketh  mention  either  of  such  pains  in  Purgatory,  or 
what  comfort  we  may  do  them ;  it  is  certain  that  the 
same  is  feigned  for  lucre,  and  not  grounded  upon  God’s 
word.” 

For  the  rest  it  will  be  observed  what  terrific  reality 
Cranmer’s  loyal  Erastianism  gave  to  St.  Paul’s  saying, 
that  those  who  resist  authority  receive  to  themselves 
damnation.  “  This  I  assure  you  of,  that  if  all  the 
whole  world  should  pray  for  you  until  doomsday,  their 
prayers  should  no  more  avail  for  you  than  they  should 
avail  the  devils  in  hell,  if  they  prayed  for  them,  unless 
you  be  penitent  and  sorry  for  your  disobedience.”  1 

Notwithstanding  the  severity  of  this  document,  the 
Archbishop’s  behaviour  towards  Papists  became  more 
and  more  lenient  as  he  receded  'further  and  further 
from  them  in  opinion.  The  vicar  of  Stepney,  formerly 
Abbot  of  St.  Mary  of  Grace,  was  brought  before  him 
one  day  at  Croydon  for  having  the  bells  rung  while  the 
licensed  preachers  were  preaching  in  his  church.  The 
Archbishop,  says  the  prosecutor,  “  was  too  full  of  lenity : 
a  little  he  rebuked  him,  and  bade  him  do  no  more  so. 
*  My  Lord,’  said  I,  ‘  methinks  you  are  too  gentle  unto  so 
stout  a  papist.’  ‘Well,’  said  he,  Gve  have  no  law  to 
punish  them  by.’  ‘  We  have,  my  Lord,’  said  I ;  ‘  if  I 
had  your  authority,  I  would  be  so  bold  to  unvicar  him, 
or  minister  some  sharp  punishment  unto  him  and  such 
other.  If  ever  it  come  to  their  turn,  they  will  show 
you  no  such  favour.’  ‘Well,’  said  he,  ‘if  God  so  pro¬ 
vide,  we  must  abide  it.’  ‘Surely,’  said  I,  ‘God  will 
never  con  you  thank  for  this,  but  rather  take  the  sword 
from  such  as  will  not  use  it  upon  His  enemies.’  And 

1  Jenkyns  ii.  202  foil.  The  above  are,  of  course,  but  brief 
samples  from  the  whole  document. 


160 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


thus  we  departed.’’1  “He  always  bare  a  good  face 
and  countenance  unto  the  papists,”  says  Morice,  “and 
would  both  in  word  and  deed  do  very  much  for  them, 
pardoning  their  offences ;  and  on  the  other  side,  some¬ 
what  over  severe  against  the  protestants.  On  a  time,  a 
friend  of  his  declared  unto  him  that  he  therein  did 
very  much  harm ;  whereunto  he  made  this  answer,  and 
said  ‘  What  will  ye  have  a  man  do  to  him  that  is  not 
yet  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  ? 
Shall  we  perhaps,  in  his  journey  coming  towards  us,  by 
severity  and  cruel  behaviour  overthrow  him,  and  as  it 
were  in  his  voyage  stop  him  ?  I  take  not  this  the  way 
to  allure  men  to  embrace  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.’  ”  2 
Nor  was  it  only  private  zealots  who  took  offence  at 
Cranmer’s  ways.  Towards  the  end  of  Edward’s  reign 
he  was  sadly  out  of  favour  with  the  leading  spirits  on 
the  Council.  “  I  have  heard,”  says  Ridley,  “  that  Cran- 
mer,  and  another  whom  I  will  not  name,  were  both  in 
high  displeasure,  but  especially  Cranmer,  for  repugning 
as  they  might  against  the  late  spoil  of  the  church  goods', 
taken  away  only  by  commandment  of  the  higher  powers’ 
without  any  law  or  order  of  justice,  and  without  any 
request  or  consent  of  those  to  whom  they  did  belong.”  3 
“  I  would  to  God,”  wrote  Northumberland  to  Cecil, 
"it  please  the  King’s  Majesty  to  appoint  Mr. 

Knox  to  the  office  of  Rochester  bishopric.  He  would 
be  a  whetstone  to  quicken  and  sharp  the  Bishop  of 
Canterbury;  whereof  he  had  need.”4  When  he  at¬ 
tempted  to  gain  legal  sanction  for  his  new  code  of 
Church  Law,  Northumberland  turned  fiercely  upon  him, 
and  abused  him— this  time  for  the  outspokenness  of 

l  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  157. 

-  Ibid.  p.  246.  s  Dixon  iu  4g6  *  4  IUd  ....  451. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  YI  161 

the  licensed  preachers.  “You  bishops,”  he  said,  “  look 
to  it  at  your  peril  that  the  like  happen  not  again,  or 
you  and  your  preachers  shall  suffer  for  it  together.  1 
Cranmer  was  convinced  that  the  Duke  had  been 
“  seeking  long  time  his  destruction.”  2  Even  the  young 
Cecil,  who  afterwards  learned  to  speak  very  differently 
of  him,  took  it  upon  him  to  task  Cranmer  for  covetous¬ 
ness — presumably  in  not  alienating  his  revenues  to  the 
courtiers  fast  enough.  To  all,  he  answered  meekly. 
“  As  for  your  admonition,”  he  wrote  to  Cecil,  “  I  take  it 
most  thankfully,  as  I  have  ever  been  most  glad  to  be 
admonished  by  my  friends.  But  as  for  the  saying  of 
St.  Paul,  Qui  volunt  ditescere,  incidunt  in  tentationem ,  I 
fear  it  not  half  so  much  as  I  do  stark  beggary.  I  have 
more  care  to  live  now  as  an  Archbishop,  than  I  had  to 
live  like  a  scholar  of  Cambridge.”  3 

Accusations  like  those  of  Cecil  had  indeed  been 
brought  against  the  Archbishop  in  the  days  of  Henry. 
Men  who  coveted  the  endowments  of  his  see  “  found 
means  to  put  it  into  the  King  s  head  that  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Canterbury  kept  no  hospitality  correspondent 
unto  his  revenues  and  dignity,  but  sold  his  woods,  and 
by  great  incomes  and  fines  maketh  money  to  purchase 
lands  for  his  wife  and  his  children.  The  King  hearing 
this  tale,  and  something  smelling  what  they  went 
about,”  says  Morice,  “  left  off  any  farther  to  talk  of  that 
matter.  Notwithstanding,  within  a  month  after, 
whether  it  was  of  chance  or  of  purpose  it  is  unknown, 
the  King,  going  to  dinner,  called  Mr.  Seymour  unto 
him,4  and  said,  ‘  Go  ye  straightways  unto  Lambeth,  and 

i  Dixon  hi.  512.  2  Jenkyns  i.  362. 

3  Ibid.  i.  351.  ,  .  c  .  , 

4  The  Kind’s  brother-in-law,  who  was  the  chiel  complainant. 

M 


162 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


bid  my  Lord  of  Canterbury  come  and  speak  with  me, 
at  two  of  the  clock  at  afternoon.’  Incontinently  Mr. 
Seymour  came  to  Lambeth,  and  being  brought  into  the 
hall  by  the  porter,  it  chanced  the  hall  was  set  to 
dinner ;  and  when  he  was  at  the  screen,  and  perceived 
the  hall  furnished  with  three  principal  messes,  besides 
the  rest  of  the  tables  thoroughly  set,  having  a  guilty 
conscience  of  his  untrue  report  made  to  the  King, 
recoiled  back,  and  would  have  gone  in  to  my  Lord  by 
the  chapel  way.  Mr.  Nevile,  being  steward,  brought 
him  back  unto  my  Lord  throughout  the  hall;  and 
when  he  came  to  my  Lord  and  had  done  his  message, 
my  Lord  caused  him  to  sit  down  and  dine  with  him.” 
On  Seymour  s  return,  the  King  asked  whether  my  Lord 
had  dined  before  Seymour  came.  “No  forsooth  (said 
Mr.  Seymour),  for  I  found  him  at  dinner.”  “Well  (said 
the  King),  what  cheer  made  he  you  ?  ”  “  With  these 
words,  Mr.  Seymour  kneeled  down  and  besought  the 
King’s  Majesty  of  pardon.  ‘  What  is  the  matter  ?  ’  said 
the  King.  ‘I  perceive,’  said  Mr.  Seymour,  ‘that  I  did 
abuse  your  Highness  with  an  untruth ;  for  besides  your 
Grace’s  house,  I  think  he  be  not  in  the  realm,  of  none 
estate  or  degree,  that  hath  such  a  hall  furnished,  or 
that  fareth  more  honourably  at  his  own  table.’  ”  The 
incident  was  in  Morice’s  opinion  the  means  of  averting 
a  wholesale  alienation  of  ecclesiastical  property.1 

More  and  more  towards  the  end  of  Edward’s  remn 
Granmer  retired  into  private  life,  and  to  the  care  of  his 
diocese.  Morice  and  Foxe  between  them  supply  us 
with  a  fairly  full  description  of  the  Archbishop  at  home. 
“  Concerning  his  behaviour  towards  his  family,”  says  his 

1  Morice  p.  260.  foil.  Morice  elaborately  refutes  the  charge  that 
Cranmer  had  impoverished  his  see. 


CRANMER  UNDER  EDWARD  VI 


163 


secretary,  “  I  think  there  was  never  such  a  master 
amongst  men,  both  feared  and  entirely  beloved ;  for 
as  he  was  a  man  of  most  gentle  nature,  void  of  all 
crabbed  and  churlish  conditions,  so  he  could  abide  no 
such  qualities  in  any  of  his  servants.  But  if  any  such 
outrageousness  were  in  any  of  his  men  or  family,  the 
correction  of  those  enormities  he  always  left  to  the 
ordering  of  his  officers,  who  weekly  kept  a  counting-house. 
And  if  anything  universally  were  to  be  reformed  or 
talked  of  on  that  day,  which  commonly  was  Friday,  the 
same  was  put  to  admonition.  And  if  it  were  a  fault  of 
any  particular  man,  he  was  called  forth  before  the 
company,  to  whom  warning  was  given,  that  if  he  so 
used  himself  after  three  monitions  he  should  lose  his 
service.  And  surely  there  was  never  any  committed 
to  the  porter’s  lodge  unless  it  were  for  shedding  of 
blood,  picking,  or  stealing.”  1 

“This  worthy  man,”  says  Foxe,  who  probably  derived 
the  information  from  Morice,  “  evermore  gave  himself 
to  continual  study,  not  breaking  that  order  that  he  in 
the  University  commonly  used;  that  is,  by  five  of  the 
clock  in  the  morning  at  his  book,  and  so  consuming 
the  time  in  study  and  prayer  until  nine  of  the  clock. 
He  then  applied  himself  (if  the  Prince’s  affairs  did  not 
call  him  away)  until  dinner-time  to  hear  suitors,  and 
to  dispatch  such  matters  as  appertained  unto  his  special 
cure  and  charge ;  which  principally  consisted  in  reform¬ 
ation  of  corrupt  religion  and  in  setting  forth  of  true  and 
sincere  doctrine.  For  the  most  part  always  being  in 
commission  he  associated  himself  with  learned  men  for 
sifting  and  bolting  out  of  one  matter  or  another,  for 


1  Morice  p.  269. 


164 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


the  commodity  and  profit  of  the  Church  of  England.1 
By  means  whereof,  and  what  for  his  private  study,  he 
was  never  idle ;  besides  that,  he  accounted  it  no  idle 
point  to  bestow  one  hour  or  twain  of  the  day  in  reading 
over  such  works  and  books  as  daily  came  from  beyond 
the  seas.  After  dinner,  having  no  suitors,  for  an  hour 
or  thereabouts  he  would  play  at  the  chess,  or  behold 
such  as  could  play.  That  done,  then  again  to  his 
ordinary  study  (at  the  which  commonly  he  for  the 
most  part  stood,  and  seldom  sat),  and  there  continuing 
until  five  of  the  clock,  bestowed  that  hour  in  hearing 
the  Common  Prayer,  and  walking  or  using  some  honest 
pastime  until  supper  time.  At  supper,  if  he  had  no 
appetite  (as  many  times  he  would  not  sup),  yet  would 
he  sit  down  at  the  table,  having  his  ordinary  provision 
of  his  mess  furnished  with  expedient  company,  he 
wearing  on  his  hands  his  gloves,  because  he  would  (as 
it  were)  thereby  wean  himself  from  eating  of  meat, 
but  yet  keeping  the  company  with  such  fruitful  talk 
as  did  repask  and  much  delight  the  hearers,  so  that 
by  this  means  hospitality  was  well  furnished,  and  the 
alms  chest  well  maintained  for  relief  of  the  poor.  After 
supper,  he  would  consume  one  hour  at  the  least  in 
walking  or  some  other  honest  pastime,  and  then  again 
until  nine  of  the  clock  at  one  kind  of  study  or  another.”  2 

1  “  Specially  having  almost  twenty  years  together  learned  men 
continually  sitting  with  him  in  commission  for  the  trying  out  and 
setting  forth  of  the  religion  received,  and  for  the  discussing  of 
other  matters  in  controversy,  some  of  them  daily  at  diet  with  him, 
and  some  ever  more  lying  in  his  house.”  (Morice  p.  267.) 

2  Foxe  viii.  13. 


CHAPTER  V 
cranmer’s  last  years 

As  tlie  death  of  Edward  approached,  Archbishop 
Cranmer  allowed  himself  to  be  persuaded  into  joining 
the  plot  of  the  young  King  and  Northumberland  to 
divert  the  succession  to  the  throne.  Elizabeth,  no  less 
than  Mary,  was  excluded  by  that  plot,  which  to  a 
certain  extent  relieves  those  who  took  part  in  it  from 
having  been  governed  by  theological  prepossessions. 
It  ought  also  to  be  remembered  that  at  the  time  of 
Edward’s  death  the  title  of  Mary  and  Elizabeth  was  by 
no  means  free  from  uncertainty.  Parliament  had,  it 
is  true,  permitted  Henry  VIII.  to  determine  the  succes¬ 
sion  by  will,  and  in  his  will  he  had  named  Mary  and 
Elizabeth  next  after  Edward.  But  both  of  them  were 
still,  by  Act  of  Parliament,  illegitimate.  Not  until  after 
Mary’s  coronation  did  the  obsequious  Parliament  annul 
its  own  act  which  had  declared  her  illegitimate,  laying 
all  the  blame  of  that  act  on  Cranmer.  And  it  might 
well  be  argued — as  in  fact  the  Judges  affirmed  that 
if  Henry  had  a  right  to  bequeath  the  crown  like  a 
private  property,  Edward  possessed  the  same  right. 
There  was  no  great  moral  fault  in  consenting  to  the 
proposed  arrangement. 

Nevertheless  it  was  a  grievous  mistake,  and  a  man 

165 


1G6 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


of  more  independence  of  mind  would  not  have  made 
it.  For  Cranmer  was  convinced  at  the  time  that  it  was 
a  wrong  policy.  His  was  the  last  signature  appended 
to  the  unlucky  document,  and  he  fought  hard  against 
signing.  He  earnestly  endeavoured  to  obtain  an  inter¬ 
view  with  the  King,  his  godson;  but  it  was  not  allowed, 
except  in  the  presence  of  two  of  Northumberland’s 
partisans.  “I  desired,”  he  writes  to  Mary,  “to  talk 
with  the  King’s  Majesty  alone,  but  I  could  not  be 
suffered,  and  so  I  failed  of  my  purpose.  For  if  I  might 
have  communed  with  the  King  alone,  and  at  good 
leisure,  my  trust  was  that  I  should  have  altered  him 
from  that  purpose ;  but  they  being  present,  my  labour 
was  in  vain.  That  will,  God,  He  knoweth,  I  never 
liked;  nor  never  anything  grieved  me  so  much  that 
your  Grace’s  brother  did.”  But  all  the  rest  of  the 
Privy  Council  had  signed;  and  all  the  judges  and  law 
officers  of  the  Crown,  but  one,  gave  it  as  their  opinion 
that  the  King  had  power  to  make  such  a  will ;  and 
the  dying  boy  pressed  the  Archbishop  hard.  “  Being 
the  sentence  of  the  Judges,”  he  writes,  “  methought  it 
became  not  me,  being  unlearned  in  the  law,  to  stand 
against  my  Prince  therein.  And  so  at  length  I  was 
required  by  the  King’s  Majesty  himself  to  set  to  my 
hand  to  his  will ;  saying  that  he  trusted  that  I  alone 
would  not  be  more  repugnant  to  his  will  than  the  rest 
of  the  Council  were  (which  words  surely  grieved  my 
heart  very  sore),  and  so  I  granted  him  to  subscribe  his 
will,  and  to  follow  the  same.  For  the  which  I  submit 
myself  most  humbly  unto  your  Majesty,  acknowledging 
mine  offence  with  most  grievous  and  sorrowful  heart, 
and  beseeching  your  mercy  and  pardon;  which  my 
heart  givetli  me  shall  not  be  denied  unto  me,  being 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


167 


granted  before  to  so  many,  which  travailed  not  so  much 
to  dissuade  both  the  King  and  his  Council  as  I  did.”  1 

In  thus  begging  for  his  life,  the  Archbishop  had  no 
intention  of  begging  to  retain  his  place.  He  knew  too 
well  the  line  which  Mary  was  likely  to  take,  to  suppose 
that  he  could  remain  Archbishop.  He  sought  for  no 
renewal  of  his  license,  as  at  the  accession  of  Edward. 
He  only  asked  that  before  quitting  his  office  he  might 
have  some  conversation  with  the  Queen.  “  I  will  never, 
God  willing,”  he  wrote,  “  be  author  of  sedition,  to  move 
subjects  from  the  obedience  of  their  heads  and  rulers ; 
which  is  an  offence  most  detestable.  If  I  have  uttered 
my  mind  to  your  Majesty,  being  a  Christian  Queen  and 
Governor  of  the  realm  (of  whom  I  am  most  assuredly 
persuaded,  that  your  gracious  intent  is,  above  all  other 
regards,  to  prefer  God’s  true  word,  His  honour  and 
glory) — if  I  have  uttered,  I  say,  my  mind  unto  your 
Majesty,  then  I  shall  think  myself  discharged.  For  it 
lieth  not  in  me,  but  in  your  Grace  only,  to  see  the  re¬ 
formation  of  things  that  be  amiss.  To  private  subjects  it 
appertaineth  not  to  reform  things,  but  quietly  to  suffer 
that  they  cannot  amend.  Yet  nevertheless  to  show 
your  Majesty  my  mind  in  things  appertaining  to  God, 
methink  it  my  duty,  knowing  that  I  do,  and  consider¬ 
ing  the  place  which  in  times  past  I  have  occupied.”  2 
Cranmer’s  theory  of  the  relation  between  kings  and 
primates  may  have  been  incorrect,  but  it  was  at  least 
consistent.  His  Erastianism  rose  to  the  height  of  a 
great  spiritual  principle. 

To  do  Mary  justice,  she  was  disposed  to  deal  most 
leniently  with  all  who  were  concerned  in  the  abortive 
plot.  It  was  with  the  utmost  reluctance  that  she 

1  Jenkyns  i.  361.  2  Ibid.  i.  363. 


168 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


consented  to  proceed  against  the  poor  girl  who  for  a 
few  hours  had  been  thrust  into  her  throne.  Cecil, 
afterwards  Lord  Burghley,  who  had  been  more  com¬ 
promised  than  Cranmer,  remained  notwithstanding  a 
member  of  her  Council.  Cranmer  himself  was  left  at 
liberty.  Perhaps  it  was  hoped  that  he  would  have  fled 
from  the  country,  as  scores  of  others  were  now  doing. 
Archbishop  Heath  is  reported  to  have  said  that  there 
was  a  design  of  pensioning  him  off,  and  allowing  him 
to  retire  into  private  life.1 

But  Providence  had  destined  for  him  a  more  dis¬ 
tinguished  ending  to  his  career.  He  paid  a  visit  to 
the  Court  one  day — it  seems  to  have  been  for  the 
generous  purpose  of  befriending  Sir  John  Cheke,  who 
was  involved  in  the  same  trouble  as  himself.2  About 
the  same  date,  his  suffragan,  Thornden,  Bishop  of 
Hover,  who  owed  so  much  to  the  Archbishop,  took 
upon  him  to  say  the  Latin  Mass  in  Canterbury 
Cathedral.  The  rumour  got  about  that  he  had  done 
so  by  Cranmer  s  orders,  and  that  Cranmer  himself  had 
offered  to  say  Mass  before  the  Queen.  This  rumour 
roused  him — him  who  was  so  little  angered  at  any 
merely  personal  calumnies — to  a  flame  of  indignation. 
Worldly  prudence — all  solicitude  for  his  own  safety — 
was  flung  to  the  winds.  He  wrote  a  declaration,  which 
it  was  his  intention  to  have  sealed  with  his  archiepis- 
copal  seal  and  affixed  to  the  doors  of  St.  Paul’s  and  of 
all  the  churches  in  the  City,  fiercely  repudiating  the 
slander.  “  Although  I  have  been  well  exercised  these 
twenty  years  to  suffer  and  bear  evil  reports  and  lies, 
and  have  not  been  much  grieved  thereat,  but  have 
borne  all  things  quietly ;  yet  untrue  reports  to  the 
1  Foxe  viii.  38.  2  Jenkyns  i.  359. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


169 


hindrance  of  God’s  truth  are  in  no  wise  to  be  tolerated 
and  suffered.  Wherefore  these  be  to  signify  to  the 
world,  that  it  was  not  I  that  did  set  up  the  Mass  at 
Canterbury,  but  it  was  a  false,  flattering,  lying,  and 
dissimuling  monk  which  caused  Mass  to  be  set  up 
there,  without  mine  advice  or  counsel,  fieddat  illi 
Dominus  in  die  illo”  He  ended  by  offering  to  prove 
that  the  Prayerbook,  and  all  the  doctrine  and  religion 
set  out  by  the  late  King,  was  more  pure  and  scriptural 
than  any  other  doctrine  that  had  been  used  in  England 
for  a  thousand  years.1  It  was  still  illegal  to  use  the 
Latin  Mass  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  English 
service  was  the  only  authorised  service  in  the  country. 
It  might  have  been  thought  no  crime  to  offer  to  speak 
in  defence  of  it.  But  Cranmer  was  at  once  committed 
to  the  Tower,  on  the  charge  of  his  treason  against 
Mary,  and  of  aggravating  the  same  by  spreading  about 
seditious  bills.2  “This  day,”  wrote  Bishop  Bonner  a 
few  days  later  to  his  agents,  “  is  looked  Mr.  Canterbury 
must  be  placed  where  is  meet  for  him.  He  is  become 
very  humble,”  he  adds,  putting  his  own  construction 
upon  the  Primate’s  meekness,  “  and  ready  to  submit 
himself  to  all  things ;  but  that  will  not  serve.”  3 

Two  months  later,  Cranmer  was  tried  at  the  Guild¬ 
hall,  with  the  Lady  Jane  and  others.  He  pleaded  guilty, 
and  was  condemned.  In  the  Tower  he  remained,  how¬ 
ever,  from  his  condemnation  in  November  1553,  till  the 

1  Jenkyns  iv.  2. 

2  Foxe  says  that  before  liis  attainder  he  took  pains  to  pay 
every  penny  that  he  owed  to  any  one,  so  that  he  might  be  “his 
own  man  ”  (viii.  14). 

3  Dixon  iv.  38.  Bonner  had  indeed  some  excuse  for  speaking 
triumphantly.  He  had  been  very  badly  treated  in  the  previous 
reign  ;  and  Cranmer  himself  had  behaved  ill  towards  him  ;  see 
Dixon  iii.  133  foil. 


170 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


following  April.  He  does  not  seem  to  have  been  ex¬ 
pressly  pardoned  for  his  treason,  but  no  more  was  said 
about  it.  There  was  a  charge  to  be  brought  against 
him  which  was  of  far  greater  importance  in  the  Queen’s 
eyes.  It  was  the  charge  of  heresy. 

There  were  reasons,  if  Mary  had  only  known  of  them — 
perhaps  she  did  not — why  Mary  should  have  been  espe¬ 
cially  careful  to  protect  the  Archbishop.  If  it  had  not 
been  for  his  interference  in  earlier  days,  Mary  would  have 
lost  her  liberty,  if  not  her  life.  Soon  after  the  birth  of 
Elizabeth,  Henry  VIII.  had  been  highly  incensed  against 
his  elder  daughter  for  refusing  to  abandon  the  title 
of  Princess,  which  she  had  formerly  worn.  He  fully 
purposed,  says  Morice,  to  send  her  to  the  Tower,  “  and 
there  to  suffer  as  a  subject,  because  she  would  not  obey 
unto  the  laws  of  the  realm  in  refusing  the  Bishop  of 
Rome’s  authority  and  religion.”  Cranmer,  who  had 
laboured  so  earnestly  and  in  vain  to  save  other  victims 
of  the  Act  of  Succession,  interposed  more  successfully 
on  Mary’s  behalf.  The  King  granted  his  generous 
request,  but  told  him  that  one  of  them  would  some  day 
see  cause  to  repent  of  the  decision.1  But  no  personal 
feelings  of  obligation  would  have  availed  to  make  Mary 
forgive  Cranmer  after  his  late  proclamation.  To  men 
who  were  willing  to  espouse  her  religious  policy  she 
could  forgive  anything.  Gardiner  had  been  at  least  as 
forward  as  Cranmer  in  the  matter  of  her  mother’s 
divorce,  and  so  far  as  we  know  had  made  no  efforts  on 
behalf  of  the  adherents  of  Catherine  and  of  the  Pope. 
But  he  had  suffered  under  Edward,  and  had  conformed 
under  Mary,  and  she  found  it  easy  to  make  him  Lord 
Chancellor  of  England,  and  to  put  herself  under  his 
1  Narratives  of  the  Reformation  p.  259. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


171 


political  guidance.  All  his  offences  were  forgotten ; 
and  so  might  Cranmer’s  have  been,  could  he  have 
changed  his  religious  ground.  But  he  could  not.  He 
was  in  the  Queen’s  eyes  a  heretic,  and  she  meant  him 
to  die  a  heretic’s  death. 

According  to  all  the  laws  of  Catholic  Christendom  no 
bishop  can  be  tried  on  such  a  charge  as  heresy  except 
by  men  of  his  own  order.  But  the  Convocation  which 
sat  in  the  beginning  of  1554,  deputed  eight  members 
of  the  Lower  House,  none  of  whom  was  more  than  a 
presbyter,  to  examine  the  Archbishop,  together  with 
Bishops  Latimer  and  Ridley.  There  was  as  yet  no  law 
of  the  land  by  which  they  could  be  condemned  ;  but 
when  this  was  objected,  Weston,  the  Prolocutor  of  the 
Lower  House,  and  head  of  the  deputed  members,  re¬ 
plied — “  It  forceth  not  for  a  law ;  we  have  commission 
to  proceed  with  them ;  when  they  be  dispatched  let 
their  friends  sue  the  law.”  1  The  illegality  was  not 
worse  than  many  things  done  by  commission  in  the  two 
previous  reigns ;  but  it  was  not  a  hopeful  presage  for 
the  returning  Catholicism  of  England.  The  three  pre¬ 
lates  were  removed  from  the  Tower,  where  of  late  they 
had  been  imprisoned  in  one  chamber,  and  had  spent 
their  time  in  studying  the  New  Testament  together. 
They  were  conveyed  to  Oxford,  where  the  delegates  of 
Convocation  were  met  and  reinforced  by  representatives 
of  the  two  Universities. 

The  proceedings  resembled  those  in  which  Cranmer  had 
taken  his  part  under  Henry,  when  the  form  of  a  judicial 
investigation  was  exchanged  for  that  of  an  academic 
debate.  No  evidence  was  called  to  ascertain  what 
Cranmer  and  the  others  had  taught.  The  authorities 

1  Dixon  iv.  176. 


172 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


professed  to  doubt,  and  perhaps  Cranmer’s  history  gave 
them  some  reason  to  doubt,  whether  his  heresy  was 
more  than  a  passing  phase  of  opinion,  which  he  might 
be  brought  by  argument  to  surrender.1  Certain  articles 
concerning  the  Eucharist  had  been  agreed  upon  which 
the  doctors  were  to  maintain,  and  Cranmer  was  to 
accept  or  to  contest  them.  The  simple  and  unself- 
asserting  man  made  no  objection  either  to  the  compo¬ 
sition  of  the  Court,  or  to  the  method  to  be  employed. 
On  Saturday,  April  14,  he  was  brought  by  the  Mayor 
of  Oxford  into  the  choir  of  Sfc.  Mary’s,  where  the  com¬ 
missioners  were  seated  before  the  altar.  He  “reverenced 
them  with  much  humility,  and  stood  with  his  staff  in 
his  hand ;  and  notwithstanding  having  a  stool  offered 
him  he  refused  to  sit.”  Weston  commenced  the  proceed¬ 
ings  with  a  short  oration  in  praise  of  unity,  in  the  course 
of  which  he  traced  Cranmer’s  career,  and  said  how  he 
had  fallen  away  from  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  now 
the  Queen  desired  them  to  bring  him  back  to  it,  if  thev 
could.  Cranmer  replied  that  he  “  was  very  glad  to 
come  to  a  unity,  so  that  it  were  in  Christ,  and  agreeable 
to  His  holy  word.”  The  three  articles  were  then  read 
out.  The  first  of  them  affirmed  that  “  the  natural  body 
of  Christ  ”  was  in  the  sacrament.  Cranmer  “  did  read 
them  over  three  or  four  times,”  and  then  asked  what 
they  meant  by  “  natural.”  “  Do  you  not  mean,”  saith 
he,  11  corpus  organicumV ’ — a  body  with  its  different 
members  and  complete  structure.  Some  answered  one 
thing,  and  some  another ;  but  the  general  answer  was, 
“  the  same  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin.”  “  Then  the 

1  Bishop  Cranmer  s  Recantacyons  'p.  17 :  Principio,  quia  cle 
gravitate  valetudinis  dubitabatur,  anceps  etiam  curatio  prcescripta 
est ,  quasi  tentandi  vulneris  causa. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


173 


Bishop  of  Canterbury  denied  it  utterly,”  and  said  that 
he  “would  not  agree  in  that  unity  with  them.”  He 
was  sent  back  to  the  gaol,  with  the  intimation  that 
he  was  to  send  in  his  opinion  that  night  in  writing, 
and  that  he  would  be  called  upon  to  dispute  on  the 
Monday.  Any  books  which  he  desired  were  to  be  given 
him.  The  modesty  of  his  behaviour  is  said  to  have 
brought  tears  to  the  eyes  of  some  of  his  opponents.1 

On  the  Monday,  at  eight  o’clock,  they  met  again. 
Weston  laid  down  at  the  outset  that  it  was  not  lawful 
to  question  the  truth  of  the  three  articles.  The  Arch¬ 
bishop  replied  that  it  was  vain  to  dispute  on  points 
which  it  was  not  lawful  to  question.  Nevertheless,  he 
prepared  himself  to  dispute.  He  had  been  well  accus¬ 
tomed  to  exercises  of  the  kind  at  Cambridge,  and  was 
an  extremely  skilful  debater.  Sir  Thomas  More  had 
confessed  himself  staggered  by  the  subtlety  of  his 
arguments.  Bishop  Gardiner  had  declared  that  Cran- 
mer  overcame  him  by  his  ingenious  sophistry.  On 
this  occasion  he  argued  in  a  manner  worthy  of  his 
reputation.  The  unsparing  foe,  who  afterwards  chronicled 
his  Recantacyons ,  says  that  it  was  observed  how  Cranmer 
played  a  double  part  in  the  disputations;  he  was  unable 
to  understand  how  the  two  things  could  be  reconciled. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  says,  Cranmer,  true  to  his  own 
character — and  it  is  a  high  testimony — would  not  utter 
a  too  eager  or  a  contemptuous  expression,  but  kept 
tongue  and  temper  under  restraint,  and  every  word 
carried  an  appearance  of  modesty  and  respectfulness ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  made  himself  the  outspoken 
representative  of  Zwinglianism.^  It  is  difficult  to 

1  Eoxe  vi.  441. 

2  Bishop  Cranmer’ s  Recantacyons  p.  19. 


174 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


imagine  how  a  man,  speaking  for  his  life,  as  Cranmer 
thought  himself  to  be,  could  be  so  calm  and  even  witty. 
He  was  accused,  for  instance,  of  falsifying  St.  Hilary  by 
reading  in  a  certain  passage  vero  for  vere ;  and  when 
he  replied  that,  even  if  vere  were  the  right  reading,  the 
change  of  one  letter  made  little  difference,  Weston 
observed  that  there  was  some  difference  between  pastor, 
a  bishop,  and  pistor,  a  baker.  “  Let  it  he  so,”  replied 
the  ready  Archbishop ;  “  yet  let  pistor  be  either  a  baker 
or  maker  of  bread,  ye  see  here  the  change  of  a  letter, 
and  yet  no  great  difference  to  be  in  the  sense.”  1  The 
written  “  Explication  ”  which  Cranmer  had  sent  in,  and 
which  he  in  vain  asked  to  have  read  aloud  in  the  course 
of  the  disputation,  is  as  spiritual  and  beautiful  as 
anything  that  he  ever  wrote. 

But  in  spite  of  his  skill,  and  in  spite  of  his  spirit¬ 
uality,  the  position  which  he  had  adopted  on  the 
Eucharist  was  a  difficult  one  to  defend,  and  difficult  as 
it  would  have  been  in  any  circumstances,  it  was  made 
more  so  by  the  way  in  which  the  debate  was  conducted. 
There  was  ‘‘such  noise  and  crying  out  in  the  school 
that  his  mild  voice  could  not  be  heard.”  At  one  point 
Weston  is  said  to  have  stretched  out  his  hand  and  “set 
on  the  rude  people  to  cry  out  at  him  indoctum,  imperi- 
tum ,  impudentem .”2  There  were  too  many  disputants 
against  Cranmer,  all  of  them  eager  to  show  their  acute¬ 
ness  and  their  learning,  and  the  discussion  ran  from 
topic  to  topic  without  any  order  or  progress.  “  I  can 
report,”  remonstrated  the  Archbishop  to  the  Privy 
Council,  “  that  I  never  knew  nor  heard  of  a  more  con¬ 
fused  disputation  in  all  my  life.  For  albeit  there  was 
one  appointed  to  dispute  against  me,  yet  every  man 

1  Foxe  vi.  461.  2  Ibid.  vi.  454. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


175 


spake  bis  mind,  and  brought  forth  what  him  liked, 
without  order.  And  such  haste  was  made,  that  no 
answer  could  be  suffered  to  be  given  fully  to  any  argu¬ 
ment.  And  in  such  weighty  and  large  matters  there 
was  no  remedy  but  the  disputations  must  needs  be  ended 
in  one  day,  which  can  scantly  well  be  ended  in  three 
months.”  1  After  nearly  six  hours  of  it  the  Prolocutor 
abruptly  concluded,  by  calling  upon  the  bystanders  to 
cry  all  together  “  Vincit  veritas,  the  truth  overcometh.” 2 

Cranmer  now  demanded,  according  to  the  rule  of  the 
schools,  that  another  day  should  be  appointed  on  which 
he  might  be  the  opponent,  and  they  respond.  He  com¬ 
plained  to  the  Council  that  this  was  not  granted;3  but 
doubtless  it  was  thought  to  have  been  granted,  when  on 
the  following  Thursday  he  was  put  up  to  oppose  Harps- 
field,  who  kept  an  act  for  his  doctor’s  degree.  Weston 
began  the  argument  against  Harpsfield,  and  then  sud¬ 
denly  pausing  in  it,  invited  Cranmer  to  take  his  place. 
After  a  grave  compliment  to  Weston,  the  Archbishop 
asked,  “  How  Christ’s  body  is  in  the  sacrament,  accord¬ 
ing  to  your  determination  ?  ”  Harpsfield  (who  had 
been  made  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury  in  the  place  of 
Cranmer’s  brother)  replied — “  He  is  there  in  such  sort 
and  manner  as  He  may  be  eaten.”  “  My  next  question 
is,” pursued  Cranmer,  “whether  He  hath  His  quantity  and 
qualities,  form,  figure  and  such  like  properties?”  Here¬ 
upon  ensued  a  wild  hubbub.  The  doctors  were  furious 
with  him  for  such  a  thrust,  and  one  answered  one  thing 
and  one  another.  But  Cranmer  stuck  to  his  question. 
At  last  Harpsfield  was  forced  to  reply — “  He  is  there  as 
pleaseth  Him  to  be  there.”  “  I  would  be  best  contented 

1  Jenkyns  i.  366.  2  Foxevi.  468. 

3  Jenkyns  i.  366. 


176 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


with  that  answer,”  said  the  Archbishop,  “if  that  your 
appointing  of  a  carnal  presence  had  not  driven  me  of 
necessity  to  have  enquired,  for  disputation’s  sake,  how 
you  place  Him  there,  since  you  will  have  a  natural 
body.”  Cranmer  was  here  on  his  own  ground,  and 
drove  his  antagonists  from  point  to  point.  At  last,  to 
protect  Harpsfield  from  utter  discomfiture,  Weston,  who 
was  perhaps  ashamed  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
acted  three  days  before,  interposed  respectfully  :  “  Your 
wonderful  gentle  behaviour  and  modesty,  good  Mr.  Dr. 
Cranmer,  is  worthy  much  commendation  :  and  that  I 
may  not  deprive  you  of  your  right  and  just  deserving,  I 
give  you  most  hearty  thanks  in  my  own  name,  and  in 
the  name  of  all  my  brethren.”  At  which  saying  all  the 
doctors  gently  put  off  their  caps.1 

Notwithstanding  this  courtesy,  the  day  following,  the 
three  bishops  were  together  brought  before  the  com¬ 
missioners,  and  “sentence  read  over  them,  that  they 
were  no  members  of  the  Church ;  and  therefore  they, 
their  fautors  and  patrons,  were  condemned  as  heretics. 
They  were  asked  whether  they  would  turn  or  no ;  and 
they  bade  them  read  on  in  the  name  of  God,  for  they 
were  not  minded  to  turn.  So  they  were  condemned  all 
three.”  Then  Cranmer  answered — “From  this  your 
judgment  and  sentence  I  appeal  to  the  just  judgment 
of  God  Almighty,  trusting  to  be  present  with  Him  in 
heaven  for  whose  presence  in  the  altar  I  am  thus 
condemned.”  2 

But  none  of  the  three  was  yet  to  die.  Parliament, 
for  one  thing,  had  not,  in  April  1554,  revived  its  old 
laws  for  the  burning  of  heretics,  although  the  Queen 
was  prepared  to  act  as  if  it  had.  Rome  also  disapproved 
1  Foxe  vi.  518.  2  Ibid.  vi.  534. 


CRANMER'S  LAST  YEARS 


177 


of  the  way  in  which  an  unreconciled  Church  and  Realm 
behaved  as  though  it  had  been  restored  by  proper  pro¬ 
cesses.  Not  until  the  following  February  were  the  fires 
lighted,  by  which  time  the  Queen  had  been  married  to 
Philip,  Pole  had  been  received  into  the  kingdom  as 
Legate  of  the  Pope,  and  the  Houses  of  Parliament  had 
knelt  to  receive  from  him  Rome’s  absolution.  Then, 
after  the  English  Church  and  nation  had  undergone 
such  a  humiliation  as  it  had  never  undergone  before, 
Pole,  who  was  but  a  deacon  himself,  issued  a  commis¬ 
sion  for  the  trying  of  Latimer  and  Ridley.  The  con¬ 
demnation  pronounced  by  a  commission  which  Rome 
had  not  commissioned  was  treated  as  invalid.  The 
case  of  Cranmer,  a  metropolitan  who  had  worn  the  pall, 
was  held  to  belong  to  the  Pope  himself.  Accordingly 
the  King  and  Queen  made  humble  suit  to  Paul  IY.  to 
try  him.  Paul  thereupon  issued  a  summons  to  the 
imprisoned  Archbishop1  to  appear  within  eighty  days 
at  Rome,  at  the  same  time  delegating  the  trial  of  the 
case  to  the  head  of  the  Roman  Inquisition.  That  func¬ 
tionary  in  turn  delegated  the  matter  to  Brooks,  Bishop 
of  Gloucester,  who  proceeded  to  Oxford,  and  called 
before  him  Cranmer  as  the  accused,  and  the  King  and 
Queen  of  England  as  the  accusers. 

On  September  12  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  took  his 
seat  in  St.  Mary’s  Church,  on  a  scaffold  above  the  high 
altar,  with  Martin  and  Story,  the  proctors  of  the  King 
and  Queen,  on  lower  seats  to  his  right  and  left.  The 
sacrament  was  suspended  immediately  over  his  head. 

1  About  this  time  Cranmer  seems  to  have  been  removed  from 
Bocardo  to  the  house  of  one  of  the  Proctors  of  the  University,  and 
did  not  return  to  prison  until  after  his  trial  before  Brooks  (Bishop 
Cranmer’ s  Becantacyons  pp.  27,  36). 

N 


178 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


Cranmer  was  sent  for.  He  stood  for  awhile,  until  one 
of  the  officials  called  out — “  Thomas,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  appear  here  and  make  answer  to  that  shall 
be  laid  to  thy  charge ;  that  is  to  say  for  blasphemy, 
incontinency,  and  heresy;  and  make  answer  here  to  the 
Bishop  of  Gloucester,  representing  the  Pope’s  person.” 
“Upon  this,  he  being  brought  more  near  unto  the 
scaffold,  where  the  foresaid  Bishop  sat,  he  first  well 
viewed  the  place  of  judgment,  and  spying  where  the 
King  and  Queen’s  Majesty’s  proctors  were,  putting  off 
his  cap,  he  first,  humbly  bowing  his  knee  to  the  ground, 
made  reverence  to  the  one  and  after  to  the  other.  That 
done,  beholding  the  Bishop  in  the  face,  he  put  on  his 
bonnet  again,  making  no  manner  of  token  of  obedience 
towards  him  at  all.”  To  the  Bishop’s  expostulation,  he 
replied  that  he  “  did  it  not  for  any  contempt  to  his 
person,  which  he  would  have  been  content  to  have 
honoured  as  well  as  any  of  the  other,  if  his  commission 
had  come  from  as  good  an  authority  as  theirs;”  but  that 
he  “had  once  taken  a  solemn  oath  never  to  consent  to 
the  admitting  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome’s  authority  into 
this  realm  of  England  again,  and  that  he  had  done  it 
advisedly,  and  meant  by  God’s  grace  to  keep  it.” 1 

This,  indeed,  was  the  main  point  of  the  whole  busi¬ 
ness;  for  though  he  was  examined  on  many  points  in 
his  teaching  and  career,  it  was  the  contest  with  the 
Pope  that  chiefly  engrossed  his  mind.  When  the  trial 
was  over,  he  sent  his  own  report  of  it,  by  the  hands  of 
Martin  and  Story,  to  Queen  Mary,  and  a  strangely 
powerful  and  outspoken  document  it  is.  Those  who 
think  of  Cranmer  as  deficient  in  courage  must  have  for- 
gotten,  if  they  ever  read,  his  declaration  against  the  Mass 

1  Eoxe  viii.  45. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


179 


at  the  beginning  of  the  reign,  and  the  intrepid  monition 
(for  such  it  is)  which  he  now  addressed  to  the  deaf  ears  of 
the  Queen.  “  Alas,”  wrote  the  great  plain  Englishman, 
“  it  cannot  but  grieve  the  heart  of  any  natural  subject, 
to  be  accused  of  the  King  and  Queen  of  his  own  realm, 
and  specially  before  an  outward  judge,  or  by  authority 
coming  from  any  person  out  of  this  realm :  where  the 
King  and  Queen,  as  if  they  were  subjects  within  their 
own  realm,  shall  complain  and  require  justice  at  a 
stranger’s  hands  against  their  own  subject,  being  already 
condemned  to  death  by  their  own  laws ;  the  like 
whereof,  I  think,  was  never  seen.  I  would  have  wished 
to  have  had  some  meaner  adversaries ;  and  I  think  that 
death  shall  not  grieve  me  much  more,  than  to  have  my 
most  dread  and  most  gracious  Sovereign  Lord  and  Lady 
(to  whom  under  God  I  do  owe  all  obedience)  to  be 
mine  accusers  in  judgment  within  their  own  realm, 
before  any  stranger  and  outward  power.”  “  The  im¬ 
perial  crown  and  jurisdiction  temporal  of  this  realm  is 
taken  immediately  from  God,  to  be  used  under  Him 
only,  and  is  subject  unto  none  but  to  God  alone.”  He 
showed  at  length  how  harmful  to  the  Crown  were  the 
claims  of  the  Pope,  and  added  that  he  did  not  think 
these  considerations  could  have  been  opened  in  the 
Parliament  House,  or  such  a  foreign  authority  would 
never  have  been  received  again ;  “  and  if  I,”  he  said, 

“  should  allow  such  authority  within  the  realm,  I  could 
not  think  myself  true  either  to  your  Highness,  or  to 
this  my  natural  country,  knowing  that  I  do  know. 
Ignorance,  I  know,  may  excuse  other  men ;  but  he  that 
knoweth  how  prejudicial  and  injurious  the  power  and 
authority,  which  he  challengeth  everywhere,  is  to  this 
realm,  and  yet  will  allow  the  same,  I  cannot  see  in 


180 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


any  wise  how  he  can  keep  his  due  allegiance,  fidelity, 
and  truth.”  “  This  that  I  have  spoken,”  he  subjoins, 
“  against  the  power  and  authority  of  the  Pope,  I  have 
not  spoken  (I  take  God  to  record  and  judge)  for  any 
malice  I  owe  to  the  Pope’s  person,  whom  I  know  not ; 
but  I  shall  pray  to  God  to  give  him  grace  that  he  may 
seek  above  all  things  to  promote  God’s  honour  and 
glory,  and  not  to  follow  the  trade  of  his  predecessors  in 
these  latter  days.  Nor  I  have  not  spoken  it  for  fear  of 
punishment,  and  to  avoid  the  same,  thinking  it  rather 
an  occasion  to  aggravate  than  to  diminish  my  trouble ; 
but  I  have  spoken  it  for  my  most  bounden  duty  to  the 
Crown,  liberties,  laws,  and  customs  of  this  realm  of 
England,  but  most  especially  to  discharge  my  conscience 
in  uttering  the  truth  to  God’s  glory,  casting  away  all 
fear  by  the  comfort  which  I  have  in  Christ.”1 

If  this  letter  was  not  daring  enough,  Cranmer  fol¬ 
lowed  it  up  by  a  second.  “  I  learned  by  Dr.  Martin 
that  at  the  day  of  your  Majesty’s  coronation  you  took 
an  oath  of  obedience  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  the 
same  time  you  took  another  oath  to  this  realm,  to 
maintain  the  laws,  liberties,  and  customs  of  the  same. 
I  beseech  your  Majesty  to  expend  and  weigh  the  two 
oaths  together,  to  see  how  they  do  agree,  and  then — to 
do  as  your  Grace’s  conscience  shall  give  you ;  for  I  am 
surely  persuaded  that  willingly  your  Majesty  will  not 
offend  nor  do  against  your  conscience  for  nothing.  But 
I  fear  me  that  there  be  contradictions  in  your  oaths, 
and  that  those  which  should  have  informed  your  Grace 
thoroughly,  did  not  their  duties  therein.  If  your 
Majesty  ponder  the  two  oaths  diligently,  I  think  you 
shall  perceive  you  were  deceived  ;  and  then  your  High- 

1  Jenkynsi.  3G9  foil. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


181 


ness  may  use  the  matter  as  God  shall  put  in  your 
heart/’  He  ended  by  saying  that  if  her  Majesty  would 
give  him  leave,  he  would  appear  at  Rome  in  answer  to 
the  Pope’s  summons,  and  that  he  trusted  that  God 
should  put  in  his  mouth  to  defend  His  truth  there  as 
well  as  here.1 

While  Pole,  the  Legate,  was  engaged  in  composing 
elegant  philippics  in  reply,  and  Brooks’  report  of  the 
trial  was  on  its  way  to  Rome,  where  the  maniacal 
Paul  IV.  in  Consistory  pronounced  Cranmer  contu¬ 
macious,  and  commanded  that  he  should  be  degraded 
and  delivered  to  the  secular  power,2  Cranmer  was 
devising  an  appeal.  He  contrived  to  get  a  letter  taken 
to  a  doctor  of  laws  in  the  University,  asking  his  aid 
in  fashioning  an  appeal  from  the  Pope  to  a  General 
Council,  as  Luther  had  appealed.  He  said  that  the 
time  was  short,  that  the  thing  must  be  done  with  the 
utmost  secrecy,  that  he  felt  it  to  be  a  man’s  duty  to 
save  his  life  if  he  could,  and  that  his  chief  reason 
for  wishing  to  live  was  that  he  might  finish,  what  he 
had  already  begun,  a  new  reply  to  a  new  rejoinder  of 
Gardiner’s  on  the  Eucharist.  Almost  the  very  day  that 
Cranmer  penned  this  letter  his  old  antagonist  passed 
beyond  the  reach  of  controversy  by  death.3 

The  weeks  drifted  away,  and  near  the  end  of  the 
year  1555,  some  two  months  after  the  deaths  of  Latimer 
and  Ridley,  the  first  signs  of  a  change  were  observable 
in  Cranmer.  It  is  said  that  he  expressed  a  wish  to 
see  the  good  and  gentle  Tunstall,  Bishop  of  Durham. 

1  Jenkyns  i.  383. 

2  Cranmer  was  burned  at  Rome  in  effigy  ( Bishop  Cranmer' s 
JRecantacyons  p.  69). 

3  The  letter  is  in  Jenkyns  i.  385.  Gardiner  died  November  13 

1555.  ’ 


182 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


For  Tunstali  Cranmer  had  always  felt  a  high  regard. 
Tunstall,  the  friend  of  Erasmus,  had  conformed  to  the 
First  Prayerbook  of  Edward  ;  and  when  in  the  latter 
part  of  that  reign  a  bill  to  deprive  him  was  brought  into 
the  House  of  Lords,  Cranmer  alone,  with  one  lay  peer, 
contended  against  it.  When  a  little  later  he  was  de- 
prived  by  a  commission,  Cranmer  utterly  refused  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  it.  In  Henry’s  days  Tunstall  had 
spoken  as  strongly  against  the  Papacy  as  Cranmer,  or 
as  Gardiner;  but  now  he  had  submitted.  Tunstall  had 
written  a  book  upon  the  Eucharist,  about  the  same 
time  as  Gardiner  and  (on  the  whole)  taking  the  same 
side.  That  book  Cranmer  had  with  him  in  Bocardo.1 
The  aged  prelate  was  unable  to  take  the  journey  to 
Oxford ;  and  besides,  he  added,  in  words  full  of  signifi¬ 
cance,  so  far  from  his  being  any  help  to  Cranmer, 
Cranmer  would  be  confident  of  creating  doubts  in  him. 
It  came  to  Pole’s  ears  that  Cranmer  would  be  glad  to 
speak  with  him;  but  the  fastidious  Legate  preferred  to 
launch  his  diatribes  at  the  prisoner  from  afar.  England 
now  swarmed  with  Spanish  divines,  who  took  in  the 
distracted  Church  of  this  country  the  place  of  the 
Bucers  and  A  Lascos  of  the  reign  before.  Pole  sent 
one  of  these,  named  Soto,  to  the  Archbishop.  Cranmer 
was  not  much  influenced  by  Soto ;  but,  after  a  time,  he 
asked  to  see  another  of  the  Spaniards,  John  de  Villa 
Garcia.  This  young  man — he  was  not  yet  thirty — who 
was  soon  to  be  rewarded  for  his  share  in  Cranmer’s 
downfall  by  the  chair  of  Regius  Professor  in  which 
Peter  Martyr  had  sat,  before  long  established  a  kind  of 
friendship  with  the  prisoner,  though  Cranmer  warmly 
repelled  his  arguments.  If  the  bitter  writer  of  Bishop 

1  Bishop  Cranmer  s  Iiecantacyons  p.  24. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


183 


Crammers  Recantacyons  may  be  trusted,  the  influence  of 
the  gaoler  upon  his  lonely  prisoner  was  more  effectual 
than  the  syllogisms  of  the  Dominican.  Between  them, 
however,  they  succeeded.  It  was  on  New  Year’s  Eve 
that  de  Garcia  first  visited  Cranmer.  At  the  end  of 
January,  or  thereabout,  Cranmer  wrote  his  first  short 
Submission.  No  right  of  the  Pope  was  acknowledged 
in  it,  but  Cranmer  fell  back  on  his  ancient  principle 
of  yielding  to  the  judgment  of  State  authorities. 

“Forasmuch,”  he  wrote,  “as  the  King  and  Queen’s 
Majesties,  by  consent  of  their  Parliament,  have  received 
the  Pope’s  authority  within  this  realm,  I  am  content  to 
submit  myself  to  their  laws  herein,  and  to  take  the 
Pope  for  chief  head  of  the  Church  of  England,  so  far  as 
God’s  laws,  and  the  laws  and  customs  of  this  realm  will 
permit.” 

It  was  not  to  the  Pope’s  laws  that  he  submitted,  but 
to  those  of  the  King  and  Queen ;  and  he  accepted  the 
Supreme  Headship  of  the  Pope  with  the  same  careful 
reservation  with  which  the  Church  had  accepted  Henry’s 
twenty-five  years  before.  A  few  days  more,  and  he  had 
revoked  this  submission,  but  soon  substituted  for  it  a 
more  unguarded  one: — 

“  I,  Thomas  Cranmer,  doctor  in  divinity,  do  submit 
myself  to  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  and  to  the 
Pope,  Supreme  Head  of  the  same  Church,  and  unto 
the  King  and  the  Queen’s  Majesties,  and  unto  all  their 
laws  and  ordinances.” 

Even  this  was  no  renuntiation  of  his  belief  on  the 
points  in  dispute,  nor  certainly  any  acknowledgment 
that  the  Pope  was  always  right.  It  was  an  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  a  power  existing  de  facto ,  with  which  Cran- 
mer  would  no  longer  contend.  This  acknowledgment 


184 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


he  did  not  revoke  before  the  end.  It  is  said  that  he 
began  to  go  to  chapel,  that  he  attended  Mass,  that  he 
walked  again  in  the  Litany  procession,  that  on  Candle¬ 
mas  Day  he  held  a  taper,  and  that  he  joined  in  singing 
a  Requiem  or  a  Dirge.1 

The  only  answer  to  these  advances  was  a  commission 
from  London  to  two  prelates  to  act  upon  the*'  mandate 
which  had  now  arrived  from  Rome,  and  to  degrade 
Cranmer.  The  two  prelates  were  Bonner  and  Thirlby. 
Thirlby,  a  good  and  not  illiberal  man,  had  conformed  to 
all  the  changes,  from  Henry  VIII.  to  Mary,  and  kept  his 
seat  throughout,  though  he  shrank  from  changing  again 
under  Elizabeth.  It  was  probably  for  this  reason  that 
he  was  selected  for  the  odious  task.  The  task  was  the 
more  odious  because  between  him  and  Cranmer,  to 
whom  he  was  indebted  for  promotion,  there  had  been  a 
warm  personal  friendship.  “Whether  it  were  jewel, 
plate,  instrument,  maps,  horse,  or  anything  else,”  says 
the  Archbishop’s  secretary,  “Thirlby  had  but  to  admire, 
and  Cranmer  would  give  it  him.” 2  Before  him  and 
Bonner  Cranmer  was  summoned  to  appear,  on  St. 
Valentine’s  Day,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Oxford.  Even  at 
that  moment  he  was  not  spared  the  weariness  of 
hearing  declamations  and  arguments.  He  was  set  up 
aloft  upon  the  rood-screen,  while  Harpsfield  made  a 
recital  of  his  misdeeds.  When  the  orator  had  finished, 
Cranmer  flung  his  arms  around  the  great  Rood,  which 
had  been  re-erected  there,  with  its  thorn-crowned 
Figure,  crying— “  This  is  the  Judge  to  whom  I  refer  my 
hap.”  3  He  was  then  dragged  down  and  invested  with 
all  the  habiliments  of  an  archbishop,  only  made  of 

1  Bishop  Cranmer’ s  Becantacyons  p.  63. 

See  Todd  ii.  469,  3  Bishop  Cranmer’ s  Becantacyons  p.  70, 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


185 


canvas  and  rags,  in  mockery.  When  they  put  on 
him  the  chasuble,  which  he  had  not  worn  for  four 
years,  he  said— “  What !  I  think  I  shall  say  Mass,” 
meaning,  though  ironically,  “  I  suppose  I  am  to  do  so ;  ” 
to  which  one  of  Bonner’s  chaplains  answered — “Yes, 
my  Lord ;  I  trust  to  see  you  say  Mass  for  all  this.” 
“  Do  you  so  ?  ”  said  Cranmer ;  “  that  shall  you  never 
see.”  His  submissions  thus  far  had  not  involved  a 
change  of  mind  on  that  point.  Yet  the  opinions  of 
Cranmer  on  the  subject  were  now,  if  they  ever  were 
otherwise,  as  tolerant  as  those  of  Frith  had  been.  The 
doctors  fell  to  disputing  with  him  about  it.  “Do 
you  think”  said  de  Villa  Garcia,  “that  all  the  Saints 
are  lost,  who  never  heard  of  your  new  faith  ?  ”  “Nay,” 
replied  Cranmer,  “  I  think  that  you  may  gain  eternal 
salvation  by  your  faith,  and  I  by  mine.”  “  Then,”  cried 
the  friar,  “  there  is  no  one  faith,  from  which  it  is  infidelity 
to  differ.”  The  Archbishop  acknowledged  that  in  neces¬ 
sary  things  there  was  one  faith,  but  not  in  all.1  After 
an  oration  by  Bonner,  so  insolent  in  its  triumph  that 
Bishop  Thirlby  “  divers  times  pulled  him  by  the  sleeve 
to  make  an  end,”  they  proceeded  to  strip  him  of  his 
insignia,  piece  by  piece.  They  began  with  his  crosier- 
staff*;  but  Cranmer  held  fast,  and  refused  to  deliver  it 
up.  Before  it  could  be  wrested  from  him,  he  plucked 
out  of  his  left  sleeve  a  paper,  and  gave  it  to  them, 
crying — “I  appeal  to  the  next  General  Council.”  The 
paper  containing  the  appeal  was  put  in  the  hands  of 
Thirlby,  who  said  respectfully — “  My  Lord,  our  com¬ 
mission  is  to  proceed  against  you  omni  appellatione 
remota ,  and  therefore  we  cannot  admit  it.”  “  Then 
you  do  me  the  more  wrong,”  answered  the  prisoner, 

1  Bishop  Cranmer1  s  Becantacyons  p.  72. 


186 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


rising'  in  bis  travesty  attire  above  his  natural  home¬ 
liness  of  temper.  “  My  case  is  not  as  every  private 
man’s  case.  The  matter  is  between  the  Pope  and 
me  immediately ;  and  I  think  no  man  ought  to  be 
a  judge  in  his  own  cause.”  “Well,”  said  Thirlby, 
greatly  moved,  “  if  it  may  be  admitted,  it  shall.” 
When  they  took  away  his  pall,  Cranmer  once  more 
flashed  with  the  fire  of  his  great  predecessors.  “Which 
of  you,”  he  exclaimed,  “  hath  a  pall,  to  take  off 
my  pall  ?  ”  At  last  he  was  stripped  of  all,  his  head 
shaven  to  obliterate  the  tonsure,  and  his  fingers  scraped 
where  they  had  once  been  anointed ;  they  clothed  him 
with  a  yeoman’s  gown,  and  put  a  townsman’s  cap  upon 
his  head.  “Now,”  said  the  coarse  Bonner,  who  had  no 
sense  of  the  spiritual  tragedy  in  which  he  was  taking 
part,  “  are  you  no  lord  any  more.”  1 

The  appeal  which  the  Archbishop  put  in  was  worthy 
of  its  great  occasion.  He  began  by  protesting  that  he 
intended  “  to  speak  nothing  against  one,  holy,  catholic, 
and  apostolical  church,  or  the  authority  thereof  (the 
which  authority  I  have  in  great  reverence,  and  to  whom 
my  mind  is  in  all  things  to  obey) ;  and  if  anything 
peradventure,  either  by  slipperiness  of  tongue,  or  by 
indignation  of  abuses,  or  else  by  the  provocation  of 
mine  adversaries,  be  spoken  or  done  otherwise  than 
well,  or  not  with  such  reverence  as  becometh  me,  I  am 
most  ready  to  amend  it.”  Then,  in  language  which 
might  be  taken  to  imply  that  he  acknowledged  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  to  “  bear  the  room  of  Christ  in  earth,” 
and  to  “have  authority  of  God,”2  he  affirmed,  never- 

1  Foxe  viii.  79. 

2  By  the  word  “although,”  Cranmer  probably  meant  “even 
if,”  like  “though”  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  1. 


CRANMERS  LAST  YEARS 


187 


theless,  that  the  Pope  is  not  thereby  “become  un- 
sinnable,”  aod  must  be  resisted  if  he  command  any¬ 
thing  against  the  commands  of  God.  Where  resistance 
to  him  is  impossible,  because  princes,  deceived  by  evil 
counsel,  aid  him,  there  yet  lies  an  appeal  from  him. 
“  Insomuch  that  the  inferior  cannot  make  laws  of  not 
appealing  to  a  superior  power,  and  since  it  is  openly 
enough  confessed  that  a  holy  General  Council  is  above 
the  Pope,  especially  in  matters  concerning  faith,  and 
that  he  cannot  make  decrees  that  men  shall  not  appeal 
from  him  to  a  General  Council ;  therefore  I,  Thomas 
Cranmer,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  or  in  time  past 
ruler  of  the  Metropolitical  Church  of  Canterbury  .  .  . 
do  challenge  and  appeal  from  the  Pope,  ...  as  well  for 
myself  as  for  all  and  every  one  that  cleavetli  to  me,  or 
will  hereafter  be  on  my  side,  unto  a  free  General 
Council/’  It  concludes  with  the  noble  words :  “  And 
I  protest  and  openly  confess,  that  in  all  my  doctrine 
and  preaching,  both  of  the  sacrament  and  of  other  my 
doctrine  whatsoever  it  be,  not  only  I  mean  and  judge 
those  things  as  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  most  holy 
Fathers  of  old  with  one  accord  have  meant  and  judged  ; 
but  also  I  would  gladly  use  the  same  words  that  they 
used  and  not  use  any  other  words,  but  to  set  my  hand  to 
all  and  singular  their  speeches,  phrases,  ways,  and  forms 
of  speech  which  they  do  use  in  their  treatises  upon  the 
sacrament,  and  to  keep  still  their  interpretation.'  But 
in  this  thing  I  only  am  accused  for  an  heretic,  because 
I  allow  not  the  doctrine  lately  brought  in  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment,  and  because  I  consent  not  to  words  not  accustomed 
in  Scripture  and  unknown  to  the  ancient  Fathers.”  1 

1  Foxe  viii.  76.  The  word  “only’5  belongs,  of  course,  to  “this 
thing,”  not  to  “  I.” 


188 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


The  third  and  fourth  so-called  Submissions  added 
nothing  to  what  was  contained  in  the  former  ones,  or 
indeed  in  his  Appeal  itself.  In  the  third,  he  reaffirmed 
that  he  was  content  to  obey  the  royal  ordinances  as 
well  concerning  the  Pope’s  primacy  as  others,  and  pro¬ 
mised  that  he  would  move  and  stir  all  other  to  do  the  like. 
But  he  referred  the  judgment  of  his  book  on  the  Sacra¬ 
ment  not  to  the  Pope,  but  to  the  Catholic  Church  and  to 
the  next  General  Council.  In  the  fourth,  which  was 
signed  on  February  16,  and  delivered,  like  the  preceding 
one,  into  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  he  only  said 
that  he  firmly  believed  in  all  articles  and  points  of  the 
Christian  religion  and  Catholic  faith,  as  the  Catholic 
Church  doth  believe,  and  hath  believed  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  Christian  religion.  He  had  done  nothing  so 
far,  that  was  wholly  irreconcileable  with  his  former 
convictions. 

But  now,  for  some  reason,  although  he  was  informed 
that  his  death-warrant  was  actually  signed,  there  was 
a  change  in  their  treatment  of  him.  A  sister  of  his, 
who  had  apparently  gone  with  the  Queen’s  changes, 
took  counsel’s  opinion  whether  it  was  lawful  to  put  an 
Archbishop  to  death.1  At  her  urgent  entreaty  he  was 
removed  from  Bocardo,  and  lodged  in  the  Deanery  of 
Christ  Church  ;  “  where,”  says  the  austere  martyrolo- 
gist,  “he  lacked  no  delicate  fare,  played  at  the  bowls, 
had  his  pleasure  for  walking,  and  all  other  things  that 
might  bring  him  from  Christ.”  It  seemed  that  he 
might  expect  to  live.  Learned  men  surrounded  him. 
The  Spanish  friars  plied  him  incessantly.  About  the 
beginning  of  March  Cranmer  fell  indeed.  In  a  lengthy 
Latin  document,  his  fifth,  no  doubt  prepared  for  him 

1  Bishop  Cranmer’s  Tiecantacyons  p.  51. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


189 


by  John  de  Villa  Garcia,  in  whose  presence  lie  copied 
it  out  and  signed  it,  Cranmer  made  a  complete  recant¬ 
ation  of  his  former  convictions  upon  all  the  disputed 
points.  He  acknowledged  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as 
Supreme  Head  of  the  visible  Church,  the  Vicar  of 
Christ,  whom  all  were  bound  to  obey.  He  accepted 
Transubstantiation,  set  forth  in  explicit  terms ;  the  six 
other  sacraments  as  taught  by  the  Church  of  Rome ; 
the  torments  of  Purgatory,  and  prayers  to  the  Saints. 
He  expressed  penitence  for  having  ever  thought  dif¬ 
ferently  from  the  Roman  Church,  asked  the  prayers  of 
the  faithful  that  he  might  be  pardoned,  and  adjured  all 
whom  his  example  or  teaching  had  misled,  to  return  to 
the  unity  of  the  Church.  The  unhappy  man  ended  by 
calling  God  to  witness  that  this  profession  was  not  made 
for  any  mans  fear  or  favour,  but  heartily  and  very 
gladly. 

It  was,  undoubtedly,  a  miserable  departure  from  prin¬ 
ciple  ;  and  yet  it  is  not  impossible  that  an  anxiously 
inquiring  man  like  Cranmer  may,  in  these  years  of 
solitary  reflexion,  and  in  his  recent  discussions,  have 
learned  sincerely  to  doubt  the  rightness  of  much  that 
had  been  said  and  done  by  him  and  his  associates.  A 
narrow  and  rigid  mind,  such  as  Ridley’s  or  Hooper’s, 
would  not  have  entertained  a  question  of  what  it  had 
once  embraced ;  but  Cranmer  was  capable  of  it.  With 
regard  to  the  chief  topic  in  the  controversy,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  during  the  greater  part  of  his  life 
Cranmer  had  been  accustomed  devoutly  to  sing  his  Mass 
without  allowing  his  traditional  belief  to  be  shaken 
by  the  Swiss  literature  which  he  studied.  It  was  not 
unnatural  if,  when  Ridley,  who  had  persuaded  him  to 
adopt  the  Zwinglian  view,  was  gone,  further  thought 


190 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


and  study  convinced  him  that,  however  loyally  he  may 
have  intended  in  his  book  to  follow  the  Catholic  Fathers, 
he  had  failed  to  give  due  weight  to  many  of  their  utter¬ 
ances.  He  had,  if  I  mistake  not,  really  gravitated  hack 
towards  his  earlier  position — towards  the  position  of 
Bishop  Tunstall,  whom  he  had  asked  to  see.  Finding 
that  he  had  been  wrong  on  one  point,  he  gave  way  on 
all.  And  then,  at  his  last  hour,  in  that  deep  self-distrust 
which  was  so  characteristic  of  him,  he  probably  felt  that 
he  had  been  unduly  swayed  by  the  desire  to  live,  and 
that  it  was  safest  to  stand  by  the  opinions  which  he 
had  formed  while  he  was  a  free  man. 

Deeply  committed  as  he  now  was  to  the  whole  Papal 
system,  the  fallen  Cranmer  (no  doubt)  intended  at  first 
to  make  the  best  of  it ;  but  he  was  not  happy.  To  the 
congratulations  and  offers  of  Soto  he  replied,  with  sobs 
which  choked  his  utterance,  that  nothing  could  be  done 
for  him  but  to  implore  peace  and  pardon  for  him  from 
God,  for  the  pricks  of  his  conscience  would  give  him  no 
rest.  His  nights  were  troubled.  Alone  or  in  company 
he  repeated  the  Litanies,  with  their  invocations  of  the 
Saints,  which  in  Henry’s  days  he  had  set  aside.  As 
he  recited  the  Penitential  Psalms,  and  came  to  the 
words,  Fm'  Thine  arrows  stick  fast  in  me ,  his  poor 
wounded  heart  sought  relief  in  such  a  burst  of  tears, 
that  no  one  could  question  the  sincerity  of  his  sorrow. 
He  asked  for  a  learned  confessor,  who  might  hear  and 
absolve  him.  Every  flitting  of  his  heart  was  reported  to 
Pole,  and  to  the  Queen  and  Council.  Pole  granted  his 
request,  and  Cranmer  received  absolution  from  one  of 
the  Spanish  Dominicans.  Many  people  visited  him. 
He  told  them  how  glad  he  was  to  be  reunited  to  the 
flock.  Some  one  brought  him  back  his  copy  of  Sir 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


191 


Thomas  More’s  Comfort  against  Tribulation  ;  and  Cran- 
mer  took  occasion  to  say,  with  truth,  that  he  had  never 
consented  to  the  death  of  its  witty  and  upright  author. 
The  next  day  he  confessed  again,  and  received  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  with  every  expression  that  might 
satisfy  the  demands  of  those  who  surrounded  him.1 

Had  the  enemies  of  the  Archbishop  been  men  of 
wisdom,  they  would  have  been  contented  with  the 
victory  which  they  had  gained,  and  would  have  suffered 
the  discredited  Cranmer  to  pass  out  of  his  prison — for 
he  was  in  prison  again — to  a  life  of  contempt.  But 
they  were  not  men  of  wisdom.  They  were  bent  upon  a 
further  display  of  their  triumph.  There  was  yet  a 
depth  lower  for  Cranmer  to  sound ;  but  it  is  question¬ 
able  whether  it  was  more  base  for  Cranmer  to  sign  his 
next  document,  or  for  others  to  give  it  to  him  to  sign. 
His  sixth  Submission  made  no  more  complete  surrender 
of  principle  than  the  Recantation  which  preceded  it : 
that  would  have  been  impossible.  It  was  only  designed 
for  the  purpose  of  making  that  surrender  more  abject  and 
more  bitter.  The  man  who  in  February  loftily  called 
Christendom  to  step  in  and  judge  between  him  and 
the  Pope,  on  March  18  set  his  hand  to  sign  a  fulsome 
lamentation  for  having  sinned  worse  than  Saul  the  per¬ 
secutor  and  blasphemer,  and  worse  than  the  crucified 
robber.  He  had  sinned  against  heaven,  and  against 
the  realm  of  England.  He  had  been  the  cause  and 
author  of  the  divorce  of  Henry,  and  deserved  both  tem¬ 
poral  and  eternal  punishment  for  it.  Out  of  that 
divorce  had  come  the  deaths  of  many  good  men,  the 
schism  of  the  realm,  and  havoc  beyond  imagination. 
Cranmer  said  that  he  had  opened  the  windows  to  all 
1  Bishop  Cranmer' s  Recantacyons  p.  78  foil. 


192 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


the  heresies,  especially  on  the  sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  who  was  the 
author  of  this  tedious  Latin  exercise.  The  Scriptural 
conceits  which  adorn  the  composition,  and  indeed  the 
whole  style,  and  the  circumstances,  betray  the  affected 
hand  of  Pole,  who  four  days  later  was  to  be  consecrated 
to  the  see  of  the  murdered  man. 

On  March  19,  Cranmer’s  spare  time  was  occupied  in 
sending  requests  to  various  Colleges  in  Oxford — to 
Christ  Church,  Magdalen,  Corpus  Christi,  and  especially 
to  All  Souls,  upon  which,  as  Chichele’s  successor,  he 
made  a  Founder’s  claim — that  prayers  might  be  offered 
for  him  after  his  ’death,1  and  in  correcting  and  sisfnino- 
copies  of  his  recantation.  The  next  day,  some  more 
copies  were  brought  to  him  for  the  purpose ;  he  signed 
them,  and  then  said  that  no  one  should  induce  him  to  sign 
any  more.  That  evening  he  received  a  visit  from  Cole, 
the  Provost  of  Eton.  Cole’s  business  at  Oxford  was  to 
preach  at  Cranmer’s  burning,  and  the  Queen  herself 
had  given  him  the  heads  of  his  discourse.  Ever  since 
the  beginning  of  her  reign,  Mary  had  been  solicitous 
that  “  good  sermons  ”  should  be  preached  at  the  burning 
of  heretics.2  Cole  asked  Cranmer  whether  he  persevered 
in  the  faith,  to  which  he  replied  that  he  did.  He  be¬ 
sought  Cole’s  good  offices  with  Mary  on  behalf  of  his 
orphan  son,  and  wept  as  he  spoke  of  him.  It  has  been 
affirmed  that  Cole  never  told  Cranmer  that  he  was  to 
die ;  but  this  appears  to  have  been  only  a  conjecture  of 
Foxe’s  to  account  for  Cranmer’s  action  afterwards. 
Cole  told  the  Archbishop  that  he  was  charged  with  the 
melancholy  tidings  that  he  could  not  be  permitted  to 

1  Bishop  Cranmer  $  Recantacyons  pp.  90,  94. 

2  Dixon  iv.  236. 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


193 


live.  It  was  a  thing  so  monstrous  and  unheard  of,  to 
put  a  man  to  death  for  an  opinion  which  he  had 
solemnly  renounced,  that  the  Archbishop  may  well  have 
hoped,  in  spite  of  the  information ;  but  he  answered 
with  a  placid  countenance  that  he  had  never  feared 
death,  only  that  there  was  an  intolerable  burden  upon 
his  conscience. 

That  night  was  Cranmer’s  last.  He  began  to  learn 
by  heart  the  words  which  he  had  prepared  to  utter  on 
the  morrow;  then  he  broke  off,  saying  that  he  would 
read  them  from  the  manuscript.  He  supped  as  usual, 
talked  with  companions  till  a  late  hour,  went  to  bed 
and  slept  peacefully  till  five.  Then  he  rose  and  prayed, 
and  was  shriven  once  more.  Cole  came  to  visit  him 
again  that  morning,  and  asked  if  he  had  any  money 
to  give  to  the  poor, — as  condemned  men  usually 
did.  He  had  none;  and  Cole  bestowed  upon  him  fif¬ 
teen  crowns  for  the  purpose.  Those  about  him  were 
ill-pleased  when,  in  giving  a  piece  of  silver  to  a  poor 
old  woman,  he  remarked  that  he  would  rather  have  the 
prayers  of  a  good  layman  than  those  of  a  bad  priest. 
Yet  he  was  still  arranging  for  funeral  masses  in  the 
Colleges,  and  is  said  to  have  signed  fourteen  more 
copies  of  his  recantation  that  morning.  It  was  observed 
with  some  anxiety  that  a  ring  and  a  message  were 
brought  to  him  from  a  sister  who  had  stuck  to  her 
Reformation  principles  ;  and  they  may  indeed  ha,ve  had 
an  effect  upon  the  sensitive  man.  But  he  seemed  not 
to  falter.  “  Never  fear,”  he  is  reported  to  have  said  to 
his  friend  the  gaoler,  as  he  thanked  him  and  went  out 
towards  his  execution  ;  “  it  was  God  who  bent  my  mind 
and  opinion  at  the  beginning  :  I  trust  that  He  will 
complete  the  building  which  He  has  begun.” 


o 


194 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


The  morning  of  March  21  was  foul  and  rainy. 
About  nine  o’clock,  Lord  Williams,  with  the  Mayor 
and  others,  brought  the  prisoner  out  of  Bocardo  to  be 
killed.  Because  of  the  wildness  of  the  weather  it  had 
been  decided  that  the  sermon  should  not  be  preached 
at  the  stake  as  usual,  but  in  St.  Mary’s  Church. 
Cranmer  carried  in  his  bosom  the  paper  upon  which 
he  had  written  out  his  last  speech,  in  which  he  had 
purposed  to  profess  publicly  those  Roman  principles 
which  he  had  now  accepted.  It  is  possible  that  he 
still  hoped,  even  when  he  left  Bocardo,  that  the  pro¬ 
fession  would  win  him  a  reprieve.  A  friar  walked  on 
either  side  of  him ;  and  at  the  entrance  of  the  Church 
they  significantly  began  the  Nunc  Dimittis.  If  he  had 
entertained  any  doubts  before,  the  Song  of  Simeon 
must  have  certified  him  that  his  departure  was  at 
hand.  They  led  him  to  a  stage  over  against  the  pulpit, 
where  he  stood  aloft  that  all  the  people  might  see  him, 
“  in  a  bare  and  ragged  gown,  and  ill-favouredly  clothed, 
with  an  old  square  cap  ”  upon  his  head.  In  this  habit, 
he  “stood  a  good  space  upon  the  stage,”  waiting  for 
the  arrival  of  the  preacher ;  and  then,  “  turning  to  a 
pillar  near  adjoining  thereunto,  he  lifted  up  his  hands 
to  heaven,  and  prayed  unto  God  once  or  twice.”  While 
Cole’s  sermon  was  in  progress,  Cranmer  was  seen  to 
be  deeply  moved.  It  was  not  the  preacher’s  eloquence 
that  moved  him  ;  it  was  the  working  of  that  inspiration 
which  now  came  down  upon  him  in  answer  to  his 
prayer.  He  was  determining  to  recant  liis  recantation. 
“  I  shall  not  need,”  says  an  eyewitness,  who  took  the 
side  opposed  to  him,  “  for  the  time  of  sermon,  to  describe 
his  behaviour,  his  sorrowful  countenance,  his  heavy 
cheer,  his  face  bedewed  with  tears ;  some  time  lifting 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


195 


his  eyes  to  heaven  in  hope,  some  time  casting  them 
down  to  the  earth  for  shame ;  to  be  brief,  an  image  of 
sorrow,  the  dolour  of  his  heart  bursting  out  at  his  eyes 
in  plenty  of  tears,  retaining  ever  a  quiet  and  grave  be¬ 
haviour,  which  increased  the  pity  in  men’s  hearts  [so] 
that  they  unfeignedly  loved  him,  hoping  it  had  been 
his  repentance  for  his  transgression  and  error.”  And  so 
indeed  it  was. 

Sermon  ended,  the  people  began  to  hasten  to  the 
stake ;  but  Cole  called  upon  them  to  remain  and  hear 
the  condemned  man’s  profession  of  repentance  and  of 
faith,  and  to  join  in  prayer  for  him.  “  I  think,”  says 
the  eyewitness,  “  there  never  was  such  a  number  so 
earnestly  praying  together.  Love  and  hope  increased 
devotion  on  every  side.”  Then  the  Archbishop  arose, 
put  off  his  cap,  drew  forth  from  his  bosom  the  paper 
which  he  had  written,  and  said — “  Good  people,  I  had 
intended  to  desire  you  to  pray  for  me,  which  because 
Mr.  Doctor  hath  desired,  and  you  have  done  already,  I 
thank  you  most  heartily  for  it.  And  now  will  I  pray  for 
myself,  as  I  could  best  devise  for  mine  own  comfort,  and 
say  the  prayer  word  for  word  as  I  have  here  written 
it.”  He  added  that  there  was  one  thing  which  grieved 
his  conscience  more  than  all  the  rest,  of  which  he  would 
speak  by  and  by.  Still  standing  upon  his  stage,  he 
read  aloud  the  beginning  of  his  own  Litany,  and  then 
went  on  with  a  pathetic  entreaty.  “  Thou  didst  not 
give  Thy  Son  unto  death,”  he  read,  “  0  God  the  Father, 
for  our  little  and  small  sins  only,  but  for  all  the  greatest 
sins  of  the  world,  so  that  the  sinner  returns  unto  Thee 
with  a  penitent  heart,  as  I  do  here  at  this  present.” 
Then  falling  upon  his  knees  and  all  the  people  along 
with  him,  he  said  the  Lord’s  Prayer  in  English,  but  it 


196 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


was  observed  that  be  added  no  Ave  Maria.  After  that 
he  stood  up,  and  read  his  speech.  He  exhorted  the 
people  not  to  set  overmuch  by  this  glozing  world, 
willingly  and  gladly  to  obey  the  King  and  Queen,  to 
love  one  another  with  brotherly  affection,  to  make  a 
right  use  of  riches — those  who  had  them.  He  had  been 
a  long  time  in  prison,  he  said,  but  he  had  heard  of  the 
great  penury  of  the  poor,  and  knew  how  dear  victuals 
were  at  the  time  in  Oxford.  And  now,  he  said — still 
reading — forsomuch  as  he  was  come  to  the  last  end 
of  his  life,  and  saw  before  his  eyes  heaven  ready  to 
receive  him,  or  hell  ready  to  swallow  him  up,  he  would 
declare  to  them  his  very  faith,  without  colour  or  dis¬ 
simulation,  whatsoever  he  had  written  in  times  past. 
He  rehearsed  the  Apostles’  Creed.  He  said  that  he 
believed  every  article  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  every  word 
and  sentence  taught  by  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  His 
Apostles  and  Prophets  in  the  New  and  Old  Testament, 
and  all  articles  explicate  and  set  forth  in  the  General 
Councils. 

“  And  now,”  he  said — and  he  was  still  reading  from 
the  manuscript— “  I  come  to  the  great  thing  that  so 
troubleth  my  conscience  more  than  anything  that  ever 
I  did  or  said  in  my  life ;  and  that  is  the  setting 
abroad  ” — but  there  Cranmer  left  his  manuscript.  In 
his  manuscript  he  had  written  that  the  thing  which 
troubled  him  was  “  the  setting  abroad  untrue  books  and 
writings  contrary  to  the  truth  of  God’s  Word— the 
books  which  I  wrote  against  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar 
sith  the  death  of  King  Henry  VIII.”  What  he  said 
was,  “  the  setting  abroad  of  writings  contrary  to  the 
truth ;  which  now  here  I  renounce  and  refuse,  as  things 
written  with  my  hand  contrary  to  the  truth  which  I 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


197 


thought  in  my  heart,  and  writ  for  fear  of  death  and  to 
save  my  life,  if  it  might  be ;  and  that  is,  all  such  bills 
which  I  have  written  or  signed  with  mine  own  hand 
since  my  degradation ; 1  wherein  I  have  written  many 
things  untrue.  And  forasmuch  as  my  hand  offended  in 
writing  contrary  to  my  heart,  therefore  my  hand  shall 
first  be  punished.  For  if  I  may  come  to  the  fire,  it  shall 
be  first  burned.  And  as  for  the  Pope,  I  refuse  him, 
as  Christ’s  enemy  and  antichrist,  with  all  his  false 
doctrine.” 

It  was  a  strangely  dramatic  ending  for  one  who 
usually  cared  so  little  for  effect.  The  downright  charac¬ 
ter  of  the  man  sets  off  the  splendour  of  his  action. 
God  had  allowed  him  to  fall,  that  the  miracle  of  his 
recovery  might  the  more  powerfully  affect  the  Church 
for  ever.  As  soon  as  his  words  were  finished,  he  turned 
as  white  as  ashes,  and  all  trace  of  tears  passed  from  his 
countenance.  Lord  Williams  was  the  first  to  speak. 
“  Are  you  in  your  senses  ?  ”  he  cried,  “  do  you  know 
what  you  are  doing  ?  ”  “  That  I  do,”  said  Cranmer. 

“  You  shall  never  clear  yourself  of  those  errors,”  cried 
Williams,  “with  that  dissembling  hand.”  “Alas,  my 
lord,”  replied  the  Archbishop,  “  I  have  been  a  man  that 
all  my  life  loved  plainness,  and  never  dissembled  till 
now  against  the  truth,  which  I  am  most  sorry  for.”  He 
added  that,  for  the  sacrament,  he  believed  as  he  had 
taught  in  his  book  against  Gardiner.  After  that  he  was 
suffered  to  speak  no  more. 

Amidst  the  hubbub  of  voices,  some  asking  what  had 
happened,  some  explaining  and  commenting  angrily 
or  exultingly,  according  to  their  predilections,  Cranmer 

1  It  will  be  observed  that  this  does  not  include  his  first  two 
Submissions. 


198 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


was  hurried  away  to  the  place  where  Latimer  and 
Ridley  had  been  burned  before  him.  So  quick  was 
the  martyr’s  step  that  others  could  scarcely  keep  pace 
with  him.  The  baulked  friars  ran  beside  him,  en¬ 
deavouring  even  yet  to  bring  him  round  again. 
“Recollect  yourself,”  urged  John  de  Garcia,  “do  not 
die  so  desperately.”  “  Away,”  Cranmer  replied,  “  this 
fellow  would  have  me  take  the  Pope  for  head  of 
the  Church,  when  he  is  its  tyrant.”  But  his  next 
answer  was  more  like  his  habitual  lowliness.  “  As¬ 
suredly,”  cried  the  friar, “you  would  have  acknowledged 
him  for  head  if  he  had  spared  your  head.”  Cranmer 
felt  that  the  thing  was  true.  It  was  the  murderous 
cruelty  shown  towards  him  which  had  brought  him  to 
his  senses.  There  was  a  pause ;  and  then  the  simple- 
hearted  Archbishop  answered — “  Yes  ;  if  he  had  saved 
me  alive,  I  should  have  obeyed  his  laws.”  De  Garcia 
reminded  him  that  he  had  made  his  confession  that 
morning.  “  Well,”  answered  the  Archbishop,  purposely 
ignoring  the  point  of  the  remark,  “  and  is  not  confession 
a  good  thing  ?  ” 

“  Coming  to  the  stake  with  a  cheerful  countenance 
and  willing  mind,”  says  the  Papist  eyewitness,  “  he  put 
off  his  garments  with  haste,  and  stood  upright  in  his 
shirt.”  The  friars  spoke  to  him  no  more ;  they  said 
the  devil  was  with  him.  When  an  Oxford  divine,  called 
Ely,  began  a  disputation,  Lord  Williams  cried — “  Make 
short,  make  short.”  An  iron  chain  fastened  Cranmer 
to  the  stake.  He  appears  to  have  taken  from  his  bosom 
a  signed  copy  of  his  Recantation,  intending  to  throw  it 
into  the  flames.  Lord  Williams  plucked  it  from  him. 
He  offered  his  hand  to  some  of  the  bystanders.  To  a 
last  appeal  from  Ely,  who  chode  those  who  accepted  the 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


199 


sign  of  kindness,  “  the  Bishop  answered,  showing  his 
hand,  'This  is  the  hand  that  wrote  it,  and  therefore 
shall  it  suffer  first  punishment.’  ”  1 

“  Fire  being  now  put  to  him,”  says  the  anonymous 
spectator,  “  he  stretched  out  his  right  hand  and  thrust 
it  into  the  flame,  and  held  it  there  a  good  space, 
before  the  fire  came  to  any  other  part  of  his  body, 
where  his  hand  was  seen  of  every  man  sensibly  burn¬ 
ing,  crying  with  a  loud  voice — ‘  This  hand  hath 
offended.’  ”  Only  once  he  withdrew  it  from  the  fire 
to  wipe  his  face.2  “  As  soon  as  the  fire  got  up  he 
was  very  soon  dead,  never  stirring  or  crying  all  the 
while.  His  patience  in  the  torment,”  continues  the 
Papist,  “  his  courage  in  dying,  if  it  had  been  taken 
either  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  wealth  of  his  country,  or 
the  testimony  of  truth,  I  could  worthily  have  commended 
the  example,  and  matched  it  with  the  fame  of  any 
Father  of  ancient  time.”  3 

So  ended  that  great  and  troubled  career.  Men  will 

1  I  am  inclined  to  tliink  that  the  quotation  of  St.  Stephen’s 
words,  cc  I  see  heaven  opened,”  which  Bishop  Cranmer’s  Re- 
cantacyons  puts  in  his  mouth,  is  a  malicious  reminiscence  of  what 
Cranmer  had  said  in  his  speech  in  St.  Mary’s  about  heaven  or 
hell  being  ready  for  him. 

2  Foxe. 

3  This  account  of  Cranmer’s  end  is  for  the  most  part  taken 
from  the  letter  of  the  anonymous  Papist  “  J.A.,”  which  is  pre¬ 
served  among  Foxe’s  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum  (Harleian, 
422,  10).  It  is  printed  by  Strype,  and  reprinted  by  Todd,  ii.  493 
foil.,  though  Mr.  Dixon  points  out  (iv.  532,  note)  that  Strype  has 
fused  it  with  another  document,  containing  Cranmer’s  speech. 
I  have  added  many  details,  however,  from  Bishop  Cranmer’s 
RecantacAjons— especially  the  dialogue  on  the  way  to  the  stake. 
With  regard  to  this  latter  pamphlet,  I  am  disposed  to  think,  in 
spite  of  the  contrary  opinion  of  Mr.  Gairdner,  the  editor,  that  it 
was  written  by  Nicholas  Harpsfield.  Sec  the  account  ot  it  in 
Dixon  iv.  490. 


200 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


continue  to  judge  him  very  variously,  according  as  they 
agree  with  his  opinions  or  disagree ;  but  it  may  be 
hoped  that  from  henceforth  one  fault  will  not  be  so 
frequently  laid  to  his  charge — a  fault  which  was  wholly 
foreign  to  his  character.  Whatever  else  he  was,  Cranmer 
was  no  crafty  dissembler.  He  was  as  artless  as  a  child. 
Even  those  actions  of  his  which  have  brought  upon  him 
the  accusation  of  double  dealing — the  reservation  with 
which  he  took  the  oath  at  his  consecration,  the  acknow¬ 
ledgment  that  he  should  not  have  withdrawn  his 
recantation  if  he  had  been  allowed  to  live — are  instances 
of  his  naive  simplicity.  He  may  sometimes  have 
deceived  himself;  he  never  had  any  intention  to  deceive 
another.  Trustful  towards  others,  even  to  a  fault,  he 
had  little  confidence  in  himself.  His  humility  amounted 
almost  to  a  vice.  His  judgment  was  too  easily  swayed 
by  those  who  surrounded  him — especially  by  those  in 
authority.  In  this  way  he  frequently  did  or  consented 
to  things  imposed  upon  him  by  others,  which  he  would 
never  have  thought  of  by  himself.  He  sheltered  him¬ 
self  under  the  notion  that  he  was  a  subordinate,  when 
by  virtue  of  his  position  he  was  necessarily  a  principal, 
and  was  surprised,  and  sometimes  even  irritated,  that 
others  did  not  see  things  in  the  same  light.  What  was 
clear  to  himself  he  expected  to  be  clear  to  others — even 
if  the  view  was  one  to  which  he  had  himself  but  lately 
come.  When  others  failed  to  assent  to  his  opinions,  he 
was  inclined  to  reprove  them  somewhat  too  plainly  for 
their  ignorance  and  stupidity.  The  few  men  whom  he 
had  learned  thoroughly  to  suspect,  like  Bishop  Gardiner, 
lie  pursued  relentlessly.  Yet  the  least  sign  of  a  change 
would  have  made  him  relent.  He  was  the  most  placable 
of  men.  “  My  Lord,”  said  Heath,  afterwards  Queen 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


201 


Mary’s  Chancellor,  “  I  now  know  how  to  win  all  things 
at  your  hands  well  enough.”  “  How  so  ?  ”  said  Cranmer. 
“  Mary,”  Heath  replied,  “  I  perceive  that  I  must  first 
attempt  to  do  unto  you  some  notable  displeasure,  and 
then  by  a  little  relenting  obtain  of  you  what  I  can 
desire.”  “Whereat  my  Lord  bit  his  lip,”  says  Morice, 
“  as  his  manner  was  when  he  was  moved,  and  said — ‘  lTou 
say  well,  but  yet  you  may  be  deceived.’  ”  “  He  was  a 

man  of  such  temperature  of  nature,  or  rather  so 
mortified,”  says  his  secretary,  “  that  no  manner  of 
prosperity  or  adversity  could  alter  or  change  his  ac¬ 
customed  conditions.  To  the  face  of  the  world,  his 
countenance,  diet,  or  sleep  commonly  never  altered.” 1 
He  was  indefatigable  in  his  industry.  His  placid 
character  knew  no  ambition.  In  an  age  of  rapine,  the 
friend  of  Henry  remained  unenriched.  So  courteous 
and  amiable  in  his  manners  that  his  enemies  found  fault 
with  him  on  that  account,  he  was  unstinting  in  his 
hospitality,  especially  towards  scholars,  and  lavish  in  his 
gifts.  Unless  marriage  is  a  sin,  no  breath  ever  assailed 
the  purity  of  his  life.  He  lived  in  constant  prayer  and 
penitence. 

Even  those  who  cannot  approve  of  all  Cranmer’s  acts 
and  opinions  may  well  be  thankful  to  the  Divine 
Providence  which  at  that  crisis  of  history  set  him  in  his 
great  place.  A  man  of  a  more  rigid  mind  would  have 
snapped  under  the  strain  which  he  endured,  and  the 
continuity  of  the  Church  of  England  would  have  been 
greatly  imperilled.  If  Gardiner,  or  Heath,  or  even 
Thirlby — to  name  some  of  the  most  statesmanlike  of  his 
contemporaries — had  been  put  in  the  chair  of  St. 
Augustine  when  Cranmer  was,  they  could  not  have 

1  Morice  pp.  245,  244. 


202 


THOMAS  CRANMER 


maintained  the  position  under  Edward ;  and  the  place, 
if  filled  at  all,  would  have  been  filled  by  some  reckless 
innovator  after  the  Swiss  pattern.  Cranmer’ s  large 
mind  and  temper,  while  essentially  conservative,  was 
capable  of  taking  in  the  new  and  of  going  great  lengths 
with  it,  and  yet  of  coordinating  it  with  the  old,  instead 
of  substituting  the  one  for  the  other.  In  this  way  he 
was  able  to  preserve,  by  means  of  the  Prayerbook,  the 
Ordinal,  and  the  Articles,  a  truly  Catholic  footing  for 
the  Church  of  England.  If,  instead  of  an  ever  narrow¬ 
ing  sect  of  adherents  to  the  Papacy,  confronted  by  a 
Protestantism  which  drifts  further  and  further  away 
from  the  faith  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  our  country 
possesses  a  Church  of  unbroken  lineage,  true  to  the 
agelong  inheritance  in  its  framework  of  government, 
doctrine,  and  worship,  yet  open  to  every  form  of  progress, 
and  comprehensive  enough  to  embrace  every  human 
being  who  confesses  Christ,  the  thanks  are  due,  under 
God,  to  the  sagacity,  the  courage,  the  suppleness  com¬ 
bined  with  firmness,  of  Archbishop  Cranmer.  The 
unparalleled  splendour  of  his  dying  actions  secured  for 
ever  to  the  Church  of  England  what  his  life  had  gained. 
For  two  things  Cranmer  lived.  He  lived  to  restore,  as 
nearly  as  might  be,  the  Church  of  the  Fathers ;  and  he 
lived,  and  he  died,  for  the  rights  and  the  welfare  of 
England.  The  independence  of  the  English  Crown,  the 
freedom  of  the  English  Church  from  an  intolerable 
foreign  yoke,  an  English  Bible,  the  English  services — 
for  these  he  laboured  with  untiring  and  unostentatious 
diligence,  and  with  few  mistakes,  considering  the 
difficulties  of  his  task.  He  made  no  claim  to  in¬ 
fallibility;  but  he  laid  open  the  way  to  the  correction 
of  whatever  might  be  amiss  in  his  own  teaching  or  in 


CRANMER’S  LAST  YEARS 


203 


the  Church  which  he  ruled,  when,  in  the  magnificent 
demurrer  which  he  made  at  his  degradation,  he  appealed, 
not  for  himself  only  but  for  all  those  who  should  after¬ 
wards  be  on  his  side,  to  the  next  General  Council. 
Under  that  broad  shield  which  he  threw  over  us,  we 
may  confidently  abide,  and  lay  our  cause  before  those 
who  will  candidly  weigh  the  facts  of  history. 


THE  END 


Richard  Clay  &  Sons,  Limited, 
London  &  Bungay. 


/ 


f 


* 


Princeton 

Theological  Seminary  Libraries 

1  10 

12  01173  9259 

DATE  DUE 

- - - — 

| 

— - 

m 

• 

DEMCO  38-297 

Mas^m 

"T^AWias.  ( }  r» o.  n  t\  a. >». 


l~  ~0*V\  u  r»  9.V*  1*4*  !•:“  V 


r -./<"•••■  "-^S-rCr  •'/■'  •  y  ■  ■  •  ■  -  • 

■'  ■  -  . -r  -. 


x*‘,  y'/ •*v^ •  •'**’- ' •  * '  ■  7-'  ••  v  . 


